Islamabad:
While discussing the specific laws of the person, certain members of a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court alluded Tuesday to an order of the Supreme Court – written by the main judge of PUT SC SC SC SYED MANSOOR Ali Shah – of the six -month extension in the mandate of a former army chief.
The cabinet of former Prime Minister Imran Khan approved a three -year extension for General Qamar Javed Bajwa in August 2019 with a view to “aggravation of the national security situation in the region”.
On November 26, 2019, a few days before the end of its mandate, the Supreme Court suspended the extension, citing a series of irregularities. He ordered the PTI government and the army to produce legal provisions and detailed arguments on reasoning behind this decision.
This suspension sparked a serious crisis, leading to a possible “confrontation of institutions”.
However, a bench led by former chief asifold Saeed Khosa and including judge Mian Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and judge Shah on November 28 gave the government for 6 months to legislate and iron the gaps in the renewal or extension of the mandate of an army chief.
This verdict paved the way to General Bajwa to stay until a new law determines its service conditions.
On Tuesday, when drafting intra-cut calls deposited against a previous ordinance of SC canceling the trials of May 9, 2023 rioters in military courts, the discussion violated various legislation and the role of the judiciary in their promulgation.
The chief of the bench of seven members, the judge Aminuddin Khan, pointed out that Salman Akram Raja, the lawyer of one of the convicts of May 9, referred to India in his arguments.
“Raja said that in India, calls against military trials go to an independent court. The question is whether the right to appeal to India has been granted by parliamentary legislation or judicial directives?” He asked.
Imran’s lawyer Uzair Bhandari replied that he was not aware of the details of this issue.
Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that Parliament had legislated to give the right of appeal to the Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, who had also received the capital by a military court.
“Before us, the example of Jadhav. He obtained the right of appeal thanks to special legislation, and the right of appeal was given due to the decision of the International Court of Justice,” noted the judge .
Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan pointed out that there is also a case concerning the extension of the mandate of a former army chief. He said that there was no law to extend the mandate of the army chief and the legislated parliament for the extension of the investigation of the Supreme Court.
The leader of the bench, judge Aminuddin Khan, deplored that “everyone” is just gathering his head just to issue a notification for the extension of an army chief. “It was our situation,” he said.
During the argument of the lawyer for former Prime Minister Imran Khan, members of the bench also discussed the recent letters from the founder of the PTI written to various state officials.
Uzair Bhandari, while referring to the argument of the famous lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan as regards the way in which the trials take place before the military courts, said that even in the event of trials which are carried out in prison premises, the A lawyers of an accused are not even authorized to take “a lamb of paper”.
The trials of the founder of the PTI, Imran Khan, in various cases, were detained in the Adiala prison in Rawalpindi.
Judge Aminuddin Khan spoke to the complaint, asking how entire letters emerged from the same prison. Judge Musarrat Hilali also agreed with judge Khan, adding that the letters written in prisons are discussed these days.
Last month, Imran Khan wrote a letter to the chief judge of Pakistan Yahya Afridi. This letter was followed by a series of three other open letters addressed to the head of the general army Syed Asim Munnir.
The lawyer for the founder of the PTI has argued that the GSP + status of Pakistan is in danger because the European Union (EU) does not consider the military trial of civilians.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail pointed out that fundamental rights are a constitutional requirement and cannot be subject to any international advantage. Judge Hilali said compliance with international obligations is the responsibility of the federal government, not the Supreme Court.
Bhandari argued that the oath of a soldier indicates that the order of an officer is more important than life itself. Judge Hassan Rizvi wondered if he suggested that the army can only act during the war but not in the event of an attack at the home.
The lawyer argued that this state of mind should change so that the army could do everything. He asked why the house of the Lahore body commander was not defended during the attack on May 9, 2023
Judge Musarrat Hilali pointed out that he said something, while his client Imran said something else. Addressing the lawyer, she said, “Your client says he will only speak to people.” Bhandari refused to comment “questions outside the courtroom”.
However, the judge said that it was not rather that politics was rather a reality.
Judge Amicin Khan asked if a member of the Assembly had already raised his voice against the 1952 Pakistani army law in the Assembly. “Has a member already presented a private bill against the law?” Bhandari said the case was now in court.
The bench will resume the case today.
