Islamabad:
While arguing the specific laws of the person, some members of a Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court alluded to a higher court order, written by the senior judge of SC Puisne Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, on granting an extension of six months in the Mandate of a former Army Chief.
The cabinet of former Prime Minister Imran Khan approved an extension of three years for General Qamar Javed Bajwa in August 2019 in view of “a national security situation that worsens 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 Government of PTI and the Army to produce detailed legal provisions and arguments on the reasoning behind the measure.
This suspension caused a serious crisis, which led to a possible “shock of institutions.”
However, a bank led by former justice president Asif Saeed Khosa and comprising Judge Mian Mazha Extension of the possession of an Army Chief.
This verdict raided the way for General Bajwa to remain until a new law determined its terms of service.
On Tuesday, during the hearing of the Intra-Court appeals filed against a previous SC order of annulment of trials of May 9, 2023 protesters in military courts, the discussion was diverted to several laws and the judicial role in its promulgation.
The Bank Chief of Seven Members, Judge Aminuddin Khan, commented that Salman Akram Raja, the lawyer of one of the convicts of May 9, had referred to India in his arguments.
“Raja declared that in India, appeals against military trials go to an independent court. Is the question if the right to appeal in India was granted through parliamentary legislation or judicial directives?” asked.
Imran’s lawyer, Uzair Bhandari, replied that he was not aware of the details on this matter.
Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that Parliament legislated to give the right of appeal to Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, whom a military court had also granted capital punishment.
“Before us is the example of Jadhav. He was granted the right of appeal through special legislation, and the right of appeal was due to the decision of the International Court of Justice,” said the judge.
Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan commented that there is also a case regarding the extension of the mandate of a former Army Chief. He said there was no law to extend the mandate of the head of the Army and the Parliament legislated for the extension on the instruction of the Supreme Court.
The Bank Chief, Judge Aminuddin Khan, regretted that “all people” meet their heads only to issue a notification for the extension of an army chief. “This was our situation,” he said.
During the discussion of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, bank members also discussed the recent letters of the founder of PTI written to several state officials.
Uzair Bhandari, while referring to the argument of the famous Aitzaz Ahsan lawyer with respect to the way in which the trials take place in the military courts, declared that even in cases of trial that are carried out within a premises in the jail, the lawyers of the lawyers of A defendant is not even allowed to take “a pinch of paper.”
The trials of the founder of PTI Imran Khan in several cases have been held within the Adiala prison of Rawalpindi.
Judge Aminuddin Khan made an exception to the claim, asking how the entire letters of the same prison came out. Judge Musarrat Hilali also agreed with Judge Khan, adding that the written prison letters are discussed these days.
Last month, Imran Khan wrote a letter to the president of the Supreme Court of Pakistan Yahya Afridi. This letter was followed by a series of three other open cards addressed to the Army General, General Syed also Munir.
The PTI’s founder’s lawyer argued that Pakistan’s state of GSP+ is at risk since the European Union (EU) does not see the military judgment of civilians favorably.
Judge Jamal Commandkhail commented that fundamental rights are a constitutional requirement and cannot be subject to any international benefit. Judge Hilali declared that complying with international obligations is the responsibility of the federal government, not of the Supreme Court.
Bhandari argued that the oath of a soldier establishes that the order of an officer is more important than life itself. Judge Hassan Rizvi questioned whether he was implying that the army can only take measures during the war, but not in the case of an attack in “Home”.
The lawyer argued that this mentality must change so that the army can do everything. He questioned why the House of the commander of Lahore’s body was not defended during the attack of May 9, 2023
Judge Musarrat Hilali commented that he was saying one thing, while his client, Imran, said something else. Going to the lawyer, he said: “His client says he will only talk to those in power.” Bhandari declined to comment on “issues outside the courtroom.”
However, Justice declared that it was not politics, but that it was a reality.
Judge Aminuddin Khan asked if any member of the Assembly had raised his voice against the Law of the Army of Pakistan, 1952 in the Assembly. “Have any member ever introduced a private bill against the law?” Bhandari declared that the matter was now before the Court.
The bank will resume the audience of the case today.
