A storm has engulfed the judiciary after explosive allegations surfaced in the corruption trial of Muhammad Khan Bhatti, the once all-powerful principal secretary to former chief minister Chaudhry Parvez Elahi. According to claims now rippling through legal circles, a Special Judge in Gujranwala allegedly altered an adjournment order in the dead of night, and just as his transfer orders came into effect, to favour the accused. If proven, the episode would mark one of the darkest breaches of judicial propriety in recent memory.
At the heart of the scandal lies an order sheet dated 31 July 2025, signed by Special Judge Chaudhry Zia Ullah of the Anti-Corruption Court, Gujranwala. The document, seen by Daily Times, clearly adjourns the matter to 16 September at the request of defence counsel, while noting that the presiding officer had already been transferred, leaving Judge Zia Ullah to function only as a “duty judge.” The sheet bears the stamp: “Announced. 31-07-2025.” On paper, the order was routine, postponing further arguments until the next date. Yet what has thrown the judiciary into turmoil is the allegation that the order did not end there. That in the shadows of his transfer, the judge quietly reversed himself, granting relief to Bhatti far beyond a simple adjournment.
For Bhatti, the case was only the latest chapter in a long history of controversy. Known in political circles as the “king of corruption,” he has faced accusations ranging from massive kickbacks in development schemes to illicit recruitment in the Punjab Assembly, and from murky land deals to a sugar scandal in which investigators claimed to recover 20,000 sacks of hoarded stock. Since 2023, his name has resurfaced in inquiry after inquiry, some ending in remand, others in bail, still others in formal references. In December 2024, he secured bail in a fake recruitment case, even as accountability courts framed charges against him in Gujrat-related graft references. His legal odyssey reflects a broader malaise: high-profile corruption cases in Pakistan rarely end with conviction, instead meandering through adjournments, technicalities, and last-minute twists.
That is why the timing of the Gujranwala order has become so controversial. The judge’s transfer, confirmed by a Lahore High Court notification in September 2025, meant he was already on his way out. Critics say the combination of a pending transfer, an innocuous adjournment, and the sudden claim of a midnight acquittal is too convenient to be coincidental. They argue that the case jumped from adjournment to exoneration without the transparency of an open court, a cause list, or a recorded hearing. To date, neither the Lahore High Court registry nor the Anti-Corruption Establishment has publicly addressed whether any such modification occurred. The silence has only deepened suspicion.
Bhatti’s own history lends weight to the claims. In 2023, reports emerged that he had recorded a statement under Section 164, confessing to orchestrating bribe payments to judges at the behest of Parvez Elahi and Moonis Elahi. Whether that statement was voluntary or coerced, it etched his name into a narrative of judicial manipulation that now haunts every proceeding he faces. Against that backdrop, the Gujranwala controversy appears less like a solitary event than part of a pattern. Yet the distinction between allegation and proof is vital. What is certain is that an adjournment order exists, dated and signed. What is alleged is that it was later tampered with, possibly in exchange for illicit funds. To resolve this, legal experts say the remedies are straightforward: retrieve the digital order sheet metadata to check for after-hours edits, release the duty rosters and cause lists for July 31 and August 1, and audit whether registrar countersignatures exist for any changes. Each could be done in days, not months.