ISLAMABAD - Shahrukh Jatoi, the prime suspect in the Shahzeb Khan murder case, on Tuesday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court contending that the apex court judgment against him has prejudicially foreclosed a fair trial and the due process of law enshrined as a fundamental right under Article 10-A of the Constitution.

On February 10 had passed a detailed judgment, while in its short order on February 1, the apex court had set aside the Sindh High Court order for the retrial of the murder case, and as a result, the accused Shahrukh Jatoi, Siraj Talpur and Sajjad Talpur were arrested from the court premises in Islamabad.

Jatoi and the other suspects were arraigned in the killing of Shahzeb Khan, 20, in Karachi on the night between December 24 and December 25, 2012, while he was returning home after attending a wedding ceremony with his sister. On November 28, 2017, the SHC had set aside the Anti-Terrorism Court order stating that the murder case did not fall within the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Civil society activists had challenged the SHC order in the apex court.

In the review petition filed through Sardar Latif Khosa, Jatoi said that private persons under the garb of civil society personnel, for wholly ulterior motivations, having fractured irrelevant consideration under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, had petitioned, but in the light of strenuously opposed locus standi, their petition/appeal was not processed and instead converted into a suo moto appeal, which, decided with utmost respect, was too not maintainable.

The appellant said that the jurisdiction of courts was of constitutional origin. The jurisdiction of the ATC was regulated by specific statutory provisions, whether or not a case falls within the jurisdiction of ATC is to be decided under Section 23 of the ATA 1997 and the appeal sections of the appellate courts respectively.

“Article 184 of the Constitution does not cater for cases emanating from the judicial hierarchy which is regulated by the due process of law sanctified as a fundamental right under the Constitution. The parameters and requirements of Article 184(3) even otherwise were not available,” the counsel has maintained.

He said that the Article 184(3) of the Constitution was not invokable against a judgment of the SHC when it was akin to Article 199 of the Constitution.

“The assumption of jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is contrary to the law laid down in many judgments of the top court. The judgment under review thus being per-incurium is liable to be recalled,” the counsel said.

He said that the powers of jurisdiction exercisable by the superior courts of is regulated under Article 175(2) of the Constitution and adversarial proceedings were regulated by statutory law, while the question of fundamental public importance only falls within the ambit of Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

“The evidence collected during the investigation gives way to the evidence recorded during the trial and which alone would determine the fate of the case,” appellant’s counsel has contended.