Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday accepted the Interior Ministry’s plea to examine material on which the Quetta commission report is based.

The court, however, refused to provide the confidential documents, based on intelligence reports, against which the privilege was already sought.

The court observed that the miscellaneous part of documents is not related to proceedings.

The court also granted two weeks to the ministry’s lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan to file specific objections after examining the material.

The SC directed Balochistan Bar Council lawyer Hamid Khan to file a reply over the ministry’s 64-page objections.

Hamid would also submit the data of children of deceased lawyers on next date of hearing for provision of free education, as committed by the Balochistan government after the occurrence of Quetta incident.

A three-member bench headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim resumed the hearing of suo motu case over August 8 Quetta blast, which left more than 70 people dead.

Makhdoom told the court that the Quetta commission report made derogatory observations regarding the interior minister.

Regarding meeting of interior minister with banned outfit cleric Ahmad Ludhianvi, Makhdoom contended that the minister had called upon the delegation of Defence of Pakistan, which is not a banned outfit, adding that the list of participants was not conveyed and the minister was not aware that Ludhianvi was part of the delegation.

He added that the message was given that minister accepted demands of the delegation but there was no such acceptance of demands.

To this, Justice Hani Muslim said that hard work of the commission should be praised, adding that it is not the job of the judges to investigate besides that the commission performed the functions which were supposed to be done by the departments.

He observed that there is no proper training of investigation officers.

Makhdoom said he has no objection over the commission’s authority but the objections are only raised to the extent of observations made in the commission report against the minister.

“If you want us we will hear. Perhaps we, after hearing, may dilute the language subject to record. You have to draw line between ministry and person,” observed
Justice Hani.

Makhdoom said the decision whether to ban an organisation or not is made on the basis of intelligence agencies report.

He pleaded to expunge the adverse remarks. He contended that by the content of commission’s report, the message is conveyed that the minister was socialising with terrorist outfits daily.

“There are certain pockets in Punjab where things went wrong but no one took notice and you know what happened,” Justice Hani told Makhdoom.

He also observed that the court wanted to know these things in larger interest of the public and country.