Islamabad:
The judges on the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court pointed out on Thursday that incidents of May 9, 2023 crossed all the limits and stressed that the court should see the Pakistani law and not to any foreign legislation.
During the hearing of the intra-counters against the decision of the Supreme Court against the trial of civilians before the military courts, the bench of seven members, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan, asked the lawyer Salman Akram Raja to complete his arguments on the next audience on February 18.
Raja continued her arguments on Thursday. During the hearing, the judges asked Raja several questions on military trials, as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court and the incidents of May 9. In his arguments, Raja gave examples of martial processes of the court in India and Great Britain.
“We have to examine our own law, not in Great Britain, you waste time,” Khan Judge Khan told the lawyer. Raja told court that he had presented the examples of British law in the context of a free and transparent trial.
Sitting on the bench, Judge Musarrat Hilali said that in the intra-cout call, a request was made to restore the repealed arrangements. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said the real question in the case was whether a civilian could be courted by the Martial Court within the framework of the current system.
With that, Raja replied that the martial court of civilians was in no way possible. He also said that if article 175 (3) of the Constitution had been set up at the time of the FB Ali case, the trial would not have gone to a military court.
Judge Amicin Khan said that in the central decision, the FB Ali case had not been declared zero and not avenue under article 175 (3). Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that when there was no request to declare the decision of the FB Ali ALA and not avenue in the main case, how the bench could do so in the appeal.
Raja replied that the hands of the court were not linked; He could study in the case. On this judge, Mandokhail asked the lawyer to know to what extent the bench could go in the appeal. Judge Mazhar pointed out that “we can give reasons separately, if we do not agree”.
Judge Hilali asked the lawyer if he admitted that the crime of May 9 had been committed. Raja said he would inform the court. Judge Hilali pointed out that Limit was crossed on May 9, and now he remembered fundamental rights.
Raja argued that article 184, paragraph 3, could not be limited and that the accused had the right to an independent court and to a fair trial. Judge Khan noted that for a fair trial, it would be necessary to go beyond article 183.
Judge Khan asked if a crime had been committed, the punishment would be the same, so how there was a military trial, and the other accused were excluded. Raja replied that depriving a person from an equitable trial by accusations was a question of fundamental rights.
Judge Mazhar said it was not like stopping someone and taking him to a military trial, adding that in a normal FIR, the accused would be arrested for simple allegations. He also said that the former law of the official secret law was only against espionage, now new crimes had been added to it.
Judge Hilali told the lawyer that when the 21st constitutional amendment had been adopted, his party – Pakistan Tehreek -e -insaf (PTI) – supported the creation of military courts. On this point, Raja said that in court, he represented no political party.
On this judge, Hilali reformulated his observation, affirming that a political party also argued the military courts under the 21st amendment. Salman Akram Raja replied that the party was wrong at that time. To this, judge Hilali said that, how he makes himself that he said now that it was bad.
Judge Mandokhel said that a good thing about the 21st amendment was that it was not applied to political parties. That Allah has mercy on judge Azmat Saeed, who wrote the decision on the case of the 21st amendment. Later, the hearing was adjourned until February 18.
