Lawyers defending the seven Pakistani suspects charged with involvement in the Mumbai attacks have filed an application opposing the government's move to send a commission to India to interview persons who probed the terrorist assault, court officials said on Saturday.
The application filed in the Rawalpindi bench of the Lahore High Court will be taken up for hearing on October 11, the officials said.
The court has issued notices to the government to respond to the application. In a separate development, the Rawalpindi-based anti-terrorism court conducting the trial of the seven suspects, including Lashkar-e-Taiba commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, on Saturday adjourned the case till October 8.
There were no proceedings in the anti-terrorism court today as Lakhvi has filed a petition in the Lahore High Court seeking the transfer of the trial from Rawalpindi to Lahore.
In his petition, Lakhvi claimed that the trial was not being conducted fairly and the anti-terrorism court was being influenced by the government.
Prosecution lawyers had recently filed an application accusing the defence of resorting to delaying tactics, such as filing petitions in various courts, and demanded that proceedings in the anti-terrorism court on a daily basis, prosecutor Chaudhry Zulfiqar said.
The defence lawyers today submitted their response to this application in the anti-terrorism court, Lakhvi's lawyer Khwaja Sultan said.
After several technical hitches over the past few weeks due to the transfer of judges and de-notification of courts, authorities today announced that Judge Shahid Rafique would continue hearing the Mumbai attacks case.
At a hearing last month, Judge Rafique allowed the formation of a Pakistani commission to visit India and interview key persons connected with the probe into the Mumbai attacks, including the investigating officer, the magistrate who recorded lone surviving attacker Ajmal Kasab’s confession and doctors who conducted the autopsy of victims. Soon after this order was passed, Lakhvi filed the petition against Rafique in which he claimed the judge was being influenced by the Interior Ministry and the federal government.