- The courts could not settle beyond article 175 (3), argues Raja.
- He maintains that the judicial authority must be exercised in the sentence.
- Judge Rizvi compares the attack of the body of the body commander with Syria.
Islamabad: The Judge of the Supreme Court, Hasan Azha They had become a trend.
The comments were made during a hearing by a constitutional bank of seven members headed by Judge Amin-Din Khan during an intra-Court appeal against military judgments of civilians.
Representing the defendant Arzam Junaid, he presented arguments before the Court, lawyer Salman Akram Raja argued that the main verdict declared that the courts could not be established beyond article 175 (3) of the Constitution.
In response, Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that in service matters, the initial hearings are held at the departmental level.
Raja also affirmed that article 175 (3) should also be applied to army officers. Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed that the Constitution was promulgated in 1973 and that amendment 18 had reviewed the regulations of the martial law.
“Why do you want the SC to intervene in matters that are the responsibility of Parliament?” He questioned.
Judge Afghan added that the problem would be examined if a military officer was involved and urged the lawyer to remain within the limits of that case.
He also mentioned that India had modified his laws through parliamentary legislation. Meanwhile, Judge Rizvi said that the images of the incidents of May 9 had been broadcast on television, highlighting the damage inflicted in the house of the body’s commander.
He commented that breaking into houses and harmful properties had become a culture, making comparisons with incidents in Bangladesh and Syria. Given this, Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail commented that entering any citizen’s house was also a crime.
Judge Rizvi then questioned if there were ever attacks similar to the houses of the body’s commanders anywhere in the world. In response, Raja declared that such attacks had occurred and that he could provide examples.
Judge Mazhar asked if the legal concerns raised in the previous judicial decisions had been addressed through the legislation. Judge Commandkhail commented that Parliament seemed to be worried about other issues, emphasizing that the discussions held in the Court should take place in Parliament.
Raja argued that the judicial authority should be exercised in the sentence process, citing past decisions of the Superior Baluchistan Court that protected civilians during martial law.
He also referred to a significant ruling by Judge Waqar Seth (afternoon) of the Superior Court of Peshawar, which was even mentioned in the International Court of Justice, but was then suspended by the SC. He reiterated that no court could be established beyond article 175 (3).
