ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founding chairman and former prime minister Imran Khan and his spouse Bushra Bibi on Monday requested the Supreme Court (SC) to set aside the order passed by the apex court registrar, returning their petitions, seeking suspension of sentences awarded to them by the trial court in Al-Qadir Trust (£190 million) case.
They filled a chamber appeal in the Supreme Court under Order V, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 2025 against the order passed on June 29, 2026 by the SC Registrar, declining to entertain their petitions. Both Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi had approached the SC for suspension of sentences awarded to them by the trial court in Al Qadrir trust case.
They had moved apex court against an order passed by the Islamabad High Court on April 30, 2026, dismissing their pleas for suspension of sentences of trail court in £190 million case. Both Khan and his spouse had submitted before the court that their applications for suspension of sentence remained pending adjudication before the IHC for over a year and was fixed for hearing on 16 occasions.
They had contended that on each date of hearing, NAB persistently sought to delay adjudication on frivolous and untenable grounds, including non-appointment of a special prosecutor, requests for time to prepare the matter, inability of the special prosecutor to travel from Lahore to Islamabad, filing of a misconceived application challenging the maintainability of the suspension application, or due to non-availability of the division bench.
“Ultimately, after more than a year and 16 inconclusive hearings, the division bench of the Islamabad High Court dismissed the Appellant’s application for suspension of sentence vide
Order dated 30-4-2026,” they contended. The SC Registrar office, however, the same way returned both the petitions with the objections that they were not entertainable.
In the objections, the Registrar office had stated that the instant Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal has been presented for filing along with an application for the grant of two weeks’ time for filing paper books against the order dated 30-4-2026, passed by the IHC in CM 338/2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2025.
As the high court passed the impugned order while exercising jurisdiction under Section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, therefore, against the said order remedy lies before the Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan under Section 32-A, says the office objections.
It was further stated that grounds of CM 338/2025 of the impugned order have not been placed on record. The PTI founding chairman, however, in the chamber appeal contended that the Registrar office is vested primarily with administrative and procedural powers relating to the filing and processing of cases.
“Such powers are limited to ensuring compliance with procedural requirements, including scrutiny of form, limitation, and other prescribed defects, and do not extend to adjudication of substantive or justiciable issues,” the PTI founding chairman submitted.
They further submitted that the determination of maintainability, particularly where it involves interpretation of constitutional or statutory provisions, is a judicial function requiring application of legal reasoning and consideration of rival submissions.
“Such jurisdiction exclusively rests with the Court and cannot be exercised by the Registrar in an administrative capacity,” they contended, adding that the aforesaid principle was upheld by a single judge in Chambers of the Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan while adjudicating Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4 titled Razia Aslam vs. The Registrar, Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan.
They reproduced the relevant paragraph for the kind perusal of the apex, which had stated that: “The determination of maintainability, particularly where it involves interpretation of constitutional provisions, is a judicial function requiring application of the legal mind and adjudication upon rival contentions.” Such a function lies exclusively within the domain of the Court and cannot be assumed by the Registrar in the exercise of administrative authority. To hold otherwise would amount to conferring judicial powers upon an administrative functionary, which is neither contemplated by the Rules nor consistent with the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.
The PTI founding chairman submitted that the Registrar, while returning the CrPLA, failed to take into consideration the crucial aspect that Article 175A(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan provides that an appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court shall lie from judgments, decrees, final orders, and sentences of a high court only where expressly provided by statute. Section 32A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 provides a second appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court against a decision of the high court under Section 32 of the Ordinance.
“However, the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 does not expressly provide an appeal against an order passed on an application for suspension of sentence, even where such application arises in an appeal under Section 32 of the Ordinance,” Imran Khan submitted.
They prayed the apex court to set aside the Order dated 29-6-2026 of the SC Registrar declaring the CrPLA filed by the Appellant as not entertainable; further declare the said CrPLA as maintainable and within the jurisdiction of this Court; and direct the Registrar to institute the CrPLA filed by the Appellant and fix the same for adjudication in accordance with law.
