Supreme Court to Hear PTI Founder’s Petition for Judicial Inquiry into May 9 Incident

Islamabad:The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench has taken up the petition filed by the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Imran Khan, seeking a judicial inquiry into the events of May 9. The court ordered the Registrar Office’s objections to be dismissed and directed the petition to be numbered and scheduled for hearing.

During the proceedings, the Additional Attorney General informed the court that one of the objections raised was that the matter was not of public importance, and the government would present arguments in support of this claim, asserting that the petition should not be entertained on those grounds.

PTI’s legal counsel, Hamid Khan, argued that it had been over a year since the May 9 incident, and it was important to uncover what had actually transpired that day. He added that the country was effectively under an undeclared martial law, with the military being called in to handle protests.

In response, Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked that during martial law, the military does not need to be “called” but comes on its own accord. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar pointed out that the military is called under Article 245 of the Constitution, and if the petitioner refers to it as martial law, they would also need to challenge the provisions of Article 245. Justice Jamal Mandokhel further questioned Hamid Khan’s sweeping statement, asking if there was any formal order or authority that he was challenging in relation to martial law.

Hamid Khan then brought up the numerous First Information Reports (FIRs) filed after May 9, stating that a political party had been targeted and marginalized. Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked why they had not approached the High Court with these grievances. Hamid Khan explained that this was a national issue, not confined to a specific province, which is why the petition was filed in the Supreme Court. He also mentioned that the Registrar Office had raised objections regarding the matter not being of public interest.

Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan urged Hamid Khan to provide solid reasons for the matter’s public importance, adding that the Registrar’s objections did not seem to have merit at first glance. Hamid Khan assured the court that if the objections were removed, he would address the court’s concerns and argue the case on its merits.

The court ultimately decided to overrule the objections raised by the Registrar Office, with Justice Amin-ud-Din stating that the petition would need to address the raised issues and satisfy the court when it is re-heard.