The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday suspended its earlier verdict of voiding the civilians’ trials in military courts, VOS reported.
On October 23, the Supreme Court (SC) announced its verdict by 4-1 in pleas against civilian trials in the military courts. The PTI chairman and others moved the top court challenging the military trial of civilians named in the May 9 riots triggered by the arrest of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan in the Al-Qadir Trust case.
RecommendedMust Read
A six-member larger bench, headed by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, is hearing the appeals. The bench also includes Justice Aminuddin, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Irfan Saadat.
The intra-court appeals have been filed by the federal and provincial governments, as well as the Defence Ministry. The federal government has also sought a stay on the court verdict as well as appealed to declare the decision null and void.
The SC announced the verdict with a 5-1 majority on a set of intra-court appeals (ICAs) filed against the ruling of October 23.
Justice Musarrat Hilali is the only judge to have opposed the decision.
Earlier, the decision was reserved by the SC after hearing arguments from the respondents.
As the hearing commenced, Former CJP Justice (r) Jawwad S. Khawaja’s lawyer Latif Khosa in his arguments said, we have reservations on the bench.
Today, the Justice Masood-led bench — including Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan — took up 17 ICAs.
During the hearing, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan urged the court to conditionally allow the military trials of civilian suspects to be resumed.
Announcing its verdict, the Supreme Court said that the trials of 103 civilians would continue.
Observing that the military courts would not issue a final verdict against the suspects, the SC said that the final ruling would be conditional upon the Supreme Court’s orders.
Subsequently, the court issued notices to the respondents and adjourned the hearing until the third week of January.
