Latest news with #KhawajaHaris
Business Recorder
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Civilians' trial: SC resumes hearing of ICAs tomorrow
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court will resume hearing of Intra-Court Appeals (ICAs) against the apex court decision on trial of civilians by military courts from tomorrow (Monday). In the last hearing, Khawaja Haris, representing Ministry of Defence, completed his arguments in rebuttal, and now Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) would present the federation's stance on granting appeal against the decision of military court. Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman told the bench that deliberation is going on to provide right of appeal to people sentenced by the military courts in 9th May incidents. Civilians' trial in military courts: Grounds delineated in RDBA judgment may apply in present case: AGP tells SC AGP Mansoor Usman Awan on April 9 had told the Constitutional Bench that three grounds – mala fide, coram non judice and without jurisdiction grounds – delineated in Rawalpindi District Bar Association (RDBA) judgment for challenging Court Martial's verdict may apply in the present case. 'The apex court, if so desire, can add another ground (right of appeal),' he added. A seven-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan had been hearing the lawyers of Ministry of Interior, Minister of Law and Justice, the Punjab and Balochistan governments, and Shuhada Foundation have adopted the arguments of Khawaja Haris. A five-member larger bench, headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsan and comprising Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha A Malik on 23-10-23 declared that the trial of the civilians, who allegedly attacked army installations during the (9th May) riots, by military courts is illegal and of no legal effect. It, by a majority of 4-1, declared that clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 (in both of its sub clauses (i) & (ii)) and subsection (4) of Section 59 of the said Act are ultra vires the Constitution and of no legal effect. However, a six-member bench headed by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood on December 13, 2023 by a majority of 5-1 had suspended the order of SC five-judge judgment. Justice Musarrat Hilali had disagreed with the majority order. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
18-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CB examines status of special courts
The lawyer for the Defence Ministry informed the Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Thursday that special courts were the courts that used special jurisdiction to try criminal cases, and said that none of the May 9 accused had claimed of not receiving a fair trial. A seven-member CB, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, continued the hearing of intra-court appeals against the apex court's ruling against the trial of civilians in the military courts. The court asked Defence Ministry's lawyer Khawaja Haris to complete his arguments by Friday. During the hearing, Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that the Article 175 of the Constitution was the only article that outlined the establishment and jurisdiction of courts. However, Haris cited a previous case ruling that said that court martial and special courts did not come under the Article 175. On that, Justice Mandokhail asked the question, whether or not the special courts could be called courts. Khawaja Haris replied that special courts were the courts that conducted criminal trials, using special jurisdiction.
Express Tribune
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CB to conclude military trial case soon
A constitutional bench (CB) of the apex court has hinted at concluding a case with regard to trial of a group of May 9 rioters in military courts in the next two hearings. A seven-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan on Tuesday resumed hearing the intra-court appeals filed against the SC's October 2023 order, annulling trials of May 9 accused by military courts. Khawaja Haris, the counsel for the Ministry of Defense, continued his arguments in support of military courts and contended that the crimes committed on May 9, 2023 after the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan were against the interests of the state. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that any violation of the law is against the interests of the state, as all crimes go against the state's interest. Referring to last month's hijacking of Jaffar Express in Balochistan, he asked if the train incident was not against the interest of the state. He added that the primary role of the armed forces is the defense of Pakistan, apparently implying that it was not its job to conduct trials. Khawaja Haris responded by asking how the armed forces could defend the country "when their legs are being pulled from behind". Justice Mandokhail stated that this was not a matter for emotional responses. "It is about national security. If a police officer is stationed outside the court to ensure that no armed person enters, and he steps away for five minutes, that would be a breach of discipline. Isn't that also a matter of state security?" he asked. Justice Mussarat Hilali, while noting that she feared the media might distort her comments, asked if it was possible to deprive a citizen of his fundamental rights through simple legislation. "Shouldn't civilians be tried in military courts through a constitutional amendment?" she questioned, adding that in India, an independent forum is available to file appeals against orders of military courts. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked if the definition of civil offenses is included within the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. He noted that the SC on October 23, 2023 also nullified Article 59(4) of the act. "Does this mean that civilians are now outside the scope of the Pakistan Army Act? Does the Supreme Court's decision of October 23 mean that no civilian can now be tried under the act?" he asked. Haris replied in the affirmative. "I believe that is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision," he said. Justice Mandokhail said it is clear that if a technician is working for the army and commits an offense during that time, then he will face a military trial. However, if that technician works elsewhere a year later, the civil law would apply. The judge noted that Haris had not yet answered his question as to under which article of the Constitution do military courts operate as military courts are not covered under Article 175." The hearing will resume today at 11:30 AM.
Express Tribune
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CB remains 'inactive' as key legal battles rage on
More than four months since its formation, the constitutional bench has yet to deliver rulings on any critical cases, raising concerns over judicial inertia. On November 4, 2024, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) nominated eight judges for the constitutional bench by a majority vote, with government-backed members playing a decisive role in the selection. The bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, was widely expected to rule on the trial of civilians in military courts. However, while it conditionally permitted military courts to issue verdicts in cases related to the May 9 incidents, the bench has yet to conclude proceedings – despite holding 46 hearings. The case is set to resume next month, with Defence Ministry counsel Khawaja Haris stating he requires at least eight more hearings to complete his rebuttal. Moreover, the constitutional bench has also been unable to take up two other crucial cases due to the prolonged hearings in the military courts' case. In January, a bench led by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah raised the question of whether a regular bench could be barred from hearing matters related to the interpretation of the law and the Constitution. Subsequently, the constitutional bench committee scheduled hearings for petitions challenging the 26th Amendment on January 28. However, the eight-member constitutional bench conducted only one hearing before adjourning the matter for three weeks. More than 50 days have passed since, and the case has yet to be scheduled for further proceedings. Similarly, another key case remains pending, the dispute over the seniority of Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges. Five IHC judges have challenged the transfer of three judges from different high courts to the IHC. They have petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking to reclaim their seniority, which was altered following the transfers. The dispute particularly revolves around Justice Sarfraz Dogar from the Lahore High Court (LHC), who became the senior puisne judge, replacing Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani. The petitioners argue that the seniority of transferred judges should be determined only after they take a fresh oath. Several bar associations have also challenged these transfers, and PTI has filed a constitutional petition on the same issue. While these petitions have been allotted, they have not yet been scheduled for hearings. Legal experts believe that keeping the status quo in these crucial cases plays into the hands of the executive. Military courts have already passed judgment, and the accused are now serving their sentences – case closed, at least for now. Meanwhile, with the 26th Amendment rolling out without a hitch, the government sees no pressing need to stir the pot. Similarly, the government's blueprint for the IHC is unfolding without a wrinkle. Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar holds the fort as acting IHC chief justice, and unlike in the past, the administration is not running into roadblocks on this front. The Karachi Bar Association, through lawyer Faisal Siddiqi, has also challenged the transfer of the three judges to the IHC. The 26th Amendment vests exclusive authority in the constitutional bench to interpret the law and the Constitution, barring regular benches from exercising jurisdiction in this regard. However, the constitutional bench has yet to weigh in on any legal point since November last year, with concerns being that it was high time the bench laid down jurisprudence in public interest matters. Experts have argued that to rein in judicial overreach, the constitutional bench must draw clear lines for the exercise of public interest jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
