May 9 riots: SC accepts Imran Khan's plea seeking judicial probe

The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has granted Imran Khan's petition for judicial inquiries into the incidents of May 9 and 10, rejecting the objections raised by the Registrar Office and directing that the case be scheduled for a hearing.

The seven-member Constitutional Bench, presided over by Justice Aminuddin Khan, reviewed the petition submitted by Imran Khan, the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

The petition contests the trial of civilians under the Army Act, deeming it unconstitutional, and requests the establishment of a judicial commission to investigate the occurrences of May 9 and 10.

Hamid Khan, representing Imran Khan, presented his arguments in court, emphasizing that it has been one and a half years without clarity regarding the events of May 9.

He asserted that the nation is currently experiencing an undeclared martial law, with military intervention occurring during protests.

Justice Musarrat Hilali noted that in a martial law scenario, the military acts independently rather than being summoned. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar pointed out that the military is called upon under Article 245.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel highlighted that Imran Khan's petition referenced the military's deployment to support the civilian government under Article 245, which is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

He questioned the characterization of this situation as martial law, suggesting it may be an exaggeration.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar further inquired about the basis for challenging the constitutional authority granted by Article 245, questioning how one could label such authority as undeclared martial law.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel also sought clarification on the alleged misuse of Article 245. Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman raised concerns regarding the public interest aspect of the petition, which remains to be further discussed.

Justice Aminuddin Khan indicated that the court was currently focused solely on addressing the objections from the Registrar Office and had not yet delved into the substantive issues of the case. He remarked, “We will consider your arguments, but it appears that there is a sense of urgency among all parties involved.”