Islamabad:
The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court learned on Wednesday that the decision of a court to present Civilian to the military guard for trials on the basis of the first information report (FIR) alone was not correct.
Faisal Siddiqui, the lawyer for civil society, continued his arguments before a bench of seven members, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan in the Intra-Cour appeal on the trial of civilians in the military court. In his arguments, he said that the accused could only be delivered after the indictment.
Siddiqui told court that Uzair Bhandari, the lawyer for the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-insaf (PTI), took the position that the jurisdiction of the intra-haired appeal was limited. “I do not agree with the position of Uzair Bhandari,” he said.
Sitting on the bench, judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that Bhandari was based on the note of judge Mansoor Ali Shah in the case of practice and procedure. Siddiqui said that if the scope of the appeal was limited, “many of our calls” would be rejected.
Siddiqui argued that the constitutional bench could cancel the trial of a civilian even without declaring the provisions of the law of the void army and not avenue. He also said that the commander’s arbitrary power to hand over the accused under article 94 was not valid.
Also sitting on the bench, Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan said he had asked the question from the start if there was an official order from the ATC judge on the accused. Siddiqui replied that there was an order but no reason was given.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked if the court itself should decide whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the case or if it was compulsory for a party to oppose jurisdiction. On this judge, Aminuddin said that the court itself should determine its jurisdiction.
Siddiqui Siddiqui said that the nature of the crime was only determined after filing the accusation act. Judge Mandokhail said that if a magistrate gave an accused to the army, even then, this accused had the right to appeal, which would ultimately happen to the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The hearing was adjourned until Thursday (today).
