SC Grants Imran Khan Bail in Eight May 9 Cases Amid Judicial Debate

News Desk

Islamabad: For the first time since the enactment of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday granted bail to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan in eight cases linked to the May 9, 2023 violent incidents.

The decision, delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, is being viewed by legal experts as a cautious attempt to create a “win-win” situation for both the prosecution and the petitioner.

Relief After LHC Rejection

The Lahore High Court (LHC) had rejected Khan’s bail applications in June, declaring him the “perpetrator” of the May 9 conspiracy. Many lawyers had expected the apex court to remand the matter back to the LHC for rehearing. Instead, the Supreme Court extended relief without commenting on the LHC’s findings.

Former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar criticized the LHC judgment, saying the high court recorded “definite findings” on contested facts, undermining the presumption of innocence and prejudicing the trial.

“Such an approach is impermissible in bail jurisprudence. Courts across all rule-of-law jurisdictions have disapproved of this course, and our jurisprudence has been no exception,” Khokhar remarked. He termed the LHC’s ruling a “fundamental error,” whether due to “ignorance, incompetence, or mala fides.”

However, Khokhar also found fault with the Supreme Court for failing to set aside those findings explicitly. “This omission is astonishingly inexplicable. The SC should have disapproved the LHC’s observations and clarified that trial proceedings must remain uninfluenced,” he said, adding that precedents exist where strictures were passed against errant judges.

Concerns Over Judicial Caution

Chaudhry Fawad Hussain, a PTI leader also facing charges in the May 9 cases, welcomed the relief but noted that the SC stopped short of reprimanding the LHC bench. “If this tendency is not curbed, it will undermine the hierarchical order of the courts,” he warned.

Sarwar Muzaffar Shah advocate described the order as “legally correct but weak.” Drawing a parallel with late American judge Frank Caprio, he argued that justice should not be blind but responsive to public trust.

“An ideal judicial order shows both acumen and courage. This one shows neither. By playing too safe, the court risks further damaging the justice system,” Shah observed.

Perception Battle After 26th Amendment

Since the 26th Constitutional Amendment, there is growing public perception that superior courts are struggling to protect citizens from executive overreach. Legal commentators noted that Chief Justice Afridi and members of the constitutional benches committee seen as beneficiaries of the amendment face a “battle of perception.”

“The judiciary’s reputation will be restored not through reforms designed in collaboration with the executive, but through judgments that demonstrate independence and courage,” one lawyer said.

Political and Institutional Implications

Observers believe that while the bail order provided much-needed relief for Khan and his supporters at home and abroad, it was viewed less as an assertion of judicial independence and more as a reflection of shifting state policy.

The adjournments of earlier hearings, coupled with the SC’s reluctance to directly confront the LHC’s “definite findings,” fueled perceptions of judicial caution and lack of authority.

Ultimately, while the decision marks a turning point for Imran Khan’s legal battle, it has also reignited a larger debate over the independence, credibility, and moral authority of Pakistan’s judiciary in the post-26th Amendment landscape.

Input from Express Tribune.