Civil society activists are going to approach the Supreme Court against a Sindh High Court (SHC) order which set aside the convictions and sentences of Shahrukh Jatoi and others in the Shahzeb Khan murder case.Ten civil society activists – including Muhammad Jibran Nasir, Jamshed Raza Mahmood, Afiya Shehrbano Zia, Naeem Sadiq, Nazim Fida Hussain Haji, Zulfiqar Shah, Aquila Ismail, Fahim Zaman Khan, and Naziha Syed Ali – will file criminal petition in the apex court today (Tuesday), challenging the SHC’s November 28 order wherein it is stated that the murder case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.Renowned lawyer Faisal Siddiqi drafted the petition, a copy of which is available with The Express Tribune.In 2013, the SC had taken suo motu notice of the murder and decided to adjudicate on the question of whether the pardon granted by the family conforms to the law and is in the interest of society. The court had sought opinions from the attorney general for Pakistan and the advocates general of all four provinces. It also appointed Shahid Hamid as amicus curiae for the suo motu hearings.During the hearing, the court had observed that in the murder cases, the trial and high courts are duty-bound to examine the genuineness of the compromise, otherwise it would allow the parties to compound the offence without adhering to Islamic injunctions, particularly Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code.Hamid told The Express Tribune that the matter was still pending and the larger bench was adjudicating legal questions related to qisas and diyat. Opinions were also divided on the applicability of terrorism charges in the case, he added.The civil society members have stated in their petition that they have the legal standing to file the petition for leave to appeal as they are citizens of Karachi and reside in the same locality – Defence Housing Authority – where the murder took place. They claim the incident struck terror and created fear and panic among residents of the area, which they consider enough grounds to file the case, even though they did not directly know the deceased.The petitioners believe that they were personally terrorised and intimidated by the murder as it also created a sense of insecurity.They state that the petition is being filed as a public interest appeal on behalf of the people of Karachi, especially the people of Clifton and Defence, as well as the people of Pakistan, arguing that they were left in a state of shock and terror when the November 28 judgment was passed by the SHC.Regarding the November 28 order, the petition states that firstly, a murder appeal was disposed of by the Honourable Sindh High Court in just six pages. Secondly, the family of the deceased did not pursue the appeals pending before the SHC and entered into a compromise with the murderers.Moreover, the Sindh prosecutor general, who is the highest criminal law officer on behalf of the government, flatly conceded to the setting aside of the June 7, 2013 ATC judgment, “which is a sheer proof of the collusion between the murderers and public officers, especially in view of the past history” of this case, where prosecutors were changed repeatedly, according to the petition.It further states that the SHC division bench’s order deviated from an earlier and binding judgment of May 15, 2013, which was passed by another divisional bench of SHC in the same case and on the same issue.It adds that the SHC has erred in placing reliance on the Waris Ali and Others judgment as “it was clearly inapplicable” for the first following reasons.“Firstly, the Judgment of Waris Ali refers to earlier binding judgments of this court reported as ‘Kashif Ali versus the Judge, ATC 2, Lahore and Others’, and ‘Shahbaz Khan alias Tippu and Others versus Special Judge, ATC 3, Lahore and others’ and states without explaining that the aforementioned two binding judgments proceed on different premises, both legal and factual, without explaining in any way what those different premises are. Secondly, if the Waris Ali case is interpreted as laying down that a subjective motive to terrorise on behalf of the accused is essential and mandatory in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Anti Terrorism Act, then such a view would be contrary to the judgments reported as ‘Kashif Ali’… and ‘Shahbaz Khan’… Therefore, the impugned judgment is clearly illegal, violative of legal precedent, and liable to be set aside.”The petition also states that there were at least two eyewitnesses to the murder, meaning that overwhelming evidence against the murderers is available.