Lal Masjid case adjourned after objections over new bench




The Lal Masjid case hearing in Supreme Court suffered a setback on Tuesday following objections raised by legal counsel of Lal Masjid regarding formation of a new bench.

The two-member bench chaired by Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali was objected to by the legal counsel of Lal Masjid, Tariq Asad. He said the bench was new to the (issue) hearing, as previous benches were chaired by the CJP for a year, followed by another one chaired by Justice Awais Khawaja.

Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, while responding that he was ready to face the legal council’s arguments if he (Tariq Asad) had come prepared, clarified that the bench chaired by Justice Awais Khawaja had not been formed this week, hence the hearing for Lal Masjid had been fixed for the newly formed bench.

Justice Jamali directed that further hearing of Lal Masjid be adjourned until the third week of August, to be fixed for hearing by two-member bench chaired by Justice Awais Khawaja.

During the five-minute proceedings, son of deceased Lal Masjid cleric Allama Abdul Rashid Ghazi, Haroonur Rashid, also appeared in court.

During the previous hearing of the case by the two-member bench chaired by Justice Awais Khawaja, it had been announced that the issue would be deliberated day and night, and the bench would not take up any other issue.

Meanwhile, the kin of those martyred in the Lal Masjid operation have expressed disappointment over the court’s deliberations over the hearings in the issue, while they were languishing in utter disappointment for the past six years and were being denied justice.



  1. Editorial staff need to get their house in order. The name of the judge is Justice Jawwad Khawaja and not Awais Khawaja.

  2. Lal Masjid fiasco has already been settled. The operation was done against the terrorist elements. Every opportunity was given to terrorists to leave their arms behind and vacate the mosque premises without any retribution. I fail to understand that there are so many other cases before the courts, why not deal with these cases first.

Comments are closed.