F.P. Report
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ordered legislation to grant appeal rights to individuals convicted by military courts.
On May 7, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench accepted intra-court appeals and declared the five-judge decision on military trials null and void. Justice Aminuddin Khan authored a 68-page judgment, while Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar wrote an additional 47-page note.
Justices Aminuddin Khan, Hasan Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal concurred with the additional note, whereas Justices Jamal Mandokhail and Naeem Afghan wrote dissenting notes. The Supreme Court, in its intra-court appeal decision, permitted military trials and ordered that convicts of military courts be granted the right to appeal.
Additionally, the Supreme Court directed the government to enact legislation within 45 days to provide the right to appeal.
Apex Court rejects IHC judges’ petitions over lack of public interest: The Supreme Court Registrar’s Office returned the constitutional petitions filed by five judges of the Islamabad High Court, raising objections over their admissibility.
According to sources, the Registrar’s Office stated that the petitioners failed to clearly outline any matter of public interest in their pleas, nor did they specify which fundamental rights were being violated to warrant action under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
The objections further noted that the petitions appeared to stem from personal grievances. Citing precedent from the Zulfiqar Mehdi vs PIA case, the Registrar emphasized that constitutional petitions under Article 184(3) cannot be filed on the basis of personal vendettas.
Additionally, the Registrar’s Office remarked that the petitions did not fulfill the necessary components of a constitutional application, nor did they provide adequate clarification regarding the parties to be notified. It is to be recalled that five IHC judges had individually filed appeals in the Supreme Court, contesting various actions and powers of Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar.
In their constitutional petitions, the judges argued that a judge cannot be barred from work by the High Court; only Article 209 of the Constitution allows such action. They stated that the petitions were filed under Article 184(3), maintaining that under Article 202, only the Chief Justice can form benches according to prescribed rules, while the “master of roster” doctrine has already been struck down by the Supreme Court.
The petitions further requested that the notifications of February 3 and July 15 regarding administrative committees, along with their actions, be declared void, and that the recent rules of the IHC be declared unlawful. They also argued that under Article 199, the High Court cannot issue writs against itself. Alongside filing appeals against decisions against them, Justices Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Saman Rafat, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq, and Mohsin Akhtar Kayani appeared at the Supreme Court, completed biometric verification, and submitted their appeals.
Justice Kayani clarified that under current rules, all judges cannot be made parties in a single petition, which is why separate appeals were filed. Earlier the same day, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani also filed a separate constitutional petition in the Supreme Court, naming the CJ IHC and the State as respondents. He argued that administrative powers cannot override judicial authority, the CJ cannot alter already formed benches at will, nor can he remove judges from the roster or prevent them from performing judicial duties.
Court returns Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar’s plea seeking full court on 26th Amendment: The Supreme Court on Monday returned a petition filed by former senator Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar seeking the formation of a full court to hear matters related to the 26th Constitutional Amendment, citing procedural objections.
According to the court’s registrar office, the petition was filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, but it failed to highlight any issue of public importance — a key requirement for invoking this jurisdiction. The objections further stated that a personal grievance cannot be addressed under Article 184(3), and the petitioner failed to satisfy the court on the admissibility of the plea.
Moreover, the petition contained multiple prayers, making it non-maintainable. The former senator had sought implementation of the October 31 decision of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Committee through his petition. “This amounts to undermining and closing the doors of justice. Will file an appeal,” Khokhar said on X.
Earlier, Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar said that the government played a role in worsening the political crisis in the country. Assuring his commitment to working with PTI, Khokhar remarked, “In recent years, we have only witnessed political victimisation. The current government has contributed to deepening the crisis”. He also criticised the 26th Constitutional Amendment, stating that it had further eroded judicial powers by transferring them to the executive.
Hearing on Super Tax petitions adjourned: The Supreme Court constitutional bench on Monday adjourned until Tuesday the hearing of petitions, challenging the imposition of super tax.
The five-member bench, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, took up the matter as counsel for petitioners, Ahmad Sukhera, commenced his arguments. During the proceedings, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi questioned whether rising petrol prices from Rs150 to Rs200 or sugar prices from Rs160 to Rs170 would also constitute a “windfall profit.”
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail noted that the counsel could have argued who should be taxed and at what rate, to which Sukhera replied that the government’s policy statement itself contained contradictions. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that the petitioners seemed dissatisfied only with the tax ratio. Sukhera argued that the “windfall profit” policy unfairly benefited a handful of individuals while causing losses to the majority, raising questions on the legitimacy of such taxation. He contended that fundamental rights were at stake, relying on Article 10 of the Constitution.
Justice Mazhar, however, remarked that Article 10-A pertained to the right to a fair trial and asked what its connection was with taxation. Sukhera maintained that taxpayers were entitled to public hearings before such levies. Justice Mazhar pointed out that while such provisions existed in municipal taxation, the income tax law contained no requirement for public hearings.
The bench further enquired about the procedure for imposing taxes and questioned where due process had been violated in this case. Sukhera argued that the super tax also contravened the specific Entry 47 of the Constitution. After hearing initial arguments, the bench adjourned further proceedings until Tuesday, when Sukhera will continue his arguments.
