Imran Khan video link trial petition admitted for hearing as the Lahore High Court’s Rawalpindi Bench accepted a constitutional plea challenging the notification that allows the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder to be tried via video link in cases related to the May 9 incidents, including the attack on the General Headquarters (GHQ).
The court issued notices to the Advocate General of Punjab, seeking a formal response, and directed him to appear in person at the next hearing. However, the bench deferred further proceedings for an indefinite period and declined to grant an immediate hearing date, stating that the court office would schedule the matter in due course.
The petition was heard by a two-member bench comprising Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan and Justice Tahir Mahmood Bajwa. Representing the PTI founder, senior advocates Sardar Latif Khosa and Faisal Malik appeared before the court and presented detailed arguments against the legality and fairness of conducting the trial through video link.
During the proceedings, the petitioners contended that holding trials of such serious and high-profile criminal cases via video conferencing violates the fundamental right to a fair trial. They argued that the legal framework and constitutional guarantees require physical court appearances to ensure transparency, effective legal representation, and due process.
The lawyers maintained that while other accused individuals in the May 9 cases are being produced physically before trial courts, the PTI founder is being singled out by restricting his appearance to video link. They described this practice as discriminatory and inconsistent with the principle of equality before the law.
They further submitted that the notification authorizing video link trials directly contradicts Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process. According to the petition, conducting proceedings remotely in cases involving complex evidence, sensitive allegations, and multiple legal questions undermines the ability of defense counsel to effectively represent their client.
The counsel emphasized that meaningful consultation between a lawyer and their client is a fundamental component of a fair legal process. They argued that remote appearances severely limit confidential communication, strategic discussion, and timely legal advice, which are essential during criminal trials.
Addressing the bench, the petitioners stated that without direct and unhindered access to their client, legal representatives cannot properly prepare, present arguments, or respond to developments during court proceedings. They warned that this situation risks compromising both the defense strategy and the integrity of the judicial process.
The lawyers also described the video link trial arrangement as politically motivated and claimed that it reflects selective treatment rather than impartial administration of justice. They urged the court to declare the notification null and void, allowing in-person court appearances to ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards.
After hearing the preliminary arguments, the bench admitted the petition for regular hearing and directed the Advocate General Punjab to submit a detailed reply. The court also ordered his personal appearance to assist in clarifying the legal and administrative grounds for issuing the notification.
However, the judges declined the request for an urgent hearing, noting that the court office would fix a suitable date as per standard procedure. As a result, further proceedings were adjourned for an unspecified period.
The case has significant legal and political implications, as it directly concerns the trial procedures being adopted in sensitive cases arising from the May 9 unrest. Legal experts believe the court’s eventual decision could set an important precedent regarding the scope and limits of video link trials in Pakistan’s criminal justice system.
For now, the admission of the petition marks a key development, opening the door for a judicial review of whether remote trial mechanisms comply with constitutional guarantees and international standards of fair trial.