- Judicial decisions to be safeguarded if 26th amendment is annulled.
- SC functioning under constitutional amendment: Justice Mandokhail.
- Seven-member fines petitioner and ex-CJP Jawwad S Khawaja.
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed petitions seeking the postponement of the hearings of case relating to the trial of civilians in military courts till the 26th Constitutional Amendment issue is decided, with the judges expressing annoyance over one of the petitioner’s delaying tactics.
A seven-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan, heard multiple petitions seeking the annulment of civilians trial in military courts.
The bench also comprised 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.
Justice Ayesha A Malik was not part of the bench as the Constitutional Committee observed that since the judge was a member of the earlier bench whose judgment was under challenge, therefore, she could not sit on the constitutional bench for those appeals.
The bench, today, dimissed former chief justice Jawwad S Khawaja’s petition seeking adjournment until cases against the 26th Constitutional Amendment were decided.
The 26th Amendment had led to the formation of the constitutional bench, which now oversees all matters related to the Constitution and also has suo motu powers. Several bodies had expressed their concerns over this amendment and also sought its annulment, challenging it in the apex court.
Meanwhile, the court also slapped a fine of Rs20,000 on the former chief justice.
The hearing
During the hearing today, the court questioned Khawaja’s counsel, asking: “Do you recognise the constitutional bench?”
In response, the counsel said: “I do not accept the jurisdiction of the constitutional bench.”
Justice Mandokhail, addressing this remark, said: “Then you may leave the courtroom.”
The counsel further asserted that the current constitutional bench was nominated by the Judicial Commission.
At this, Justice Mandokhail inquired whether the 26th Constitutional Amendment had been invalidated? He was joined by Justice Mazhar, who observed: “You are employing delaying tactics. At every hearing, some new request emerges.”
“If the 26th Amendment is annulled, judicial decisions will be safeguarded. Even those detained under military courts desire this outcome,” added Justice Mazhar.
The bench then called Hafeezullah Niazi to the rostrum. Justice Mandokhail asked him: “Do you wish to proceed with this case?” Niazi affirmed: “Yes, I want to proceed.”
Addressing him further, Justice Musarrat Hilali asked him to consider those languishing in jails; you lack the legal standing to pursue this case. Justice Mandokhail added: “You are delaying proceedings because no loved one of yours is in custody.”
Justice Mandokhail clarified that the SC was functioning under the constitutional amendment.
He explained: “All benches are being formed under the new amendment, and even the case concerning the amendment will be heard by a bench constituted under it.”
