Bench Requests Case Transfer to Earlier Panel
LAHORE: A two-judge bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday recused itself from hearing the appeal filed by Barrister Hassaan Niazi, nephew of PTI’s founding chairman Imran Khan, against his trial in a military court. The bench, comprising Justice Farooq Haider and Justice Tariq Nadeem, requested the chief justice to assign the case to the same bench that had earlier been seized with the matter.
During the hearing, Advocate Faisal Siddiqui appeared on behalf of Niazi, while Assistant Advocate General Farrukh Khan represented the provincial government. Justice Haider observed that the appeal had previously been heard by a bench led by Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, who was available at the principal seat, and therefore, the case should be fixed before him or another suitable bench.
Appeal Challenges Military Custody and Trial
Barrister Niazi’s appeal argues that following his arrest in connection with the May 9 violence, he was handed over to the military by Sarwar Road police without being presented before a civilian court — an act his legal team claims was unconstitutional.
The petition seeks to nullify the commanding officer’s notification issued on August 17, 2023, which authorized his military custody, and calls for the annulment of all subsequent proceedings conducted by the military court. Niazi also demands his release or transfer to a civilian anti-terrorism court for trial.
The PTI lawyer was sentenced to ten years in prison in December 2023 in connection with the Jinnah House attack case.
Court Reserves Verdict in DG Passports Case
In a separate development, Justice Khalid Ishaq of the LHC reserved the verdict on a petition challenging the appointment of DG Immigration and Passports Mustafa Jamal Qazi.
The federal government defended the appointment, stating it was made under the amended Civil Servants Act, which allows the prime minister to appoint officers on deputation. However, petitioner Advocate Asif Ali Khitchi argued that the appointment was made during the caretaker setup in violation of merit and service rules.
The court reserved its decision after hearing final arguments from both sides.
