Islamabad:
The judge of the Constitutional Bank member, Jamal Khan Commandkhail, commented on Tuesday that it was not necessary for the court to trust only the arguments of anywhere; Rather, the court could exercise its powers to deliver “full justice.”
Sitting in a constitutional bank of seven members of the Supreme Court, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan, Judge Commandkhail questioned why an anti -terrorist court was handling the trial in the case of the attack against Parliament, while a military court had the task of trial for the attack against military facilities.
The Court was listening to an intra-court appeal against an previous verdict by the Apex court that prohibited the military courts from judging civilians. During the hearing, reference was also made to the FB Ali case of more than 50 years.
FB Ali, a retired Brigadier, was tried and convicted by a military court in 1975 for trying to overthrow the then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. His appeal was dismissed by a Bank of the Supreme Court of five members, led by the president of the Supreme Court Hamoodur Rahman.
Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan, sitting at the bank, observed that the FB Ali case was decided under the 1962 Constitution, which means that it could not be seen through the lens of the 1973 Constitution.
The lawyer of the Ministry of Defense, Khawaja Haris, said that in the case of FB Ali, it was stated that military trials were justified. Judge Commandkhail replied, noting that it was argued in the FB Ali case that article 6 (3) A of the 1962 Constitution had been discussed, although Haris responded that it had not been discussed in that case.
Judge Commandkhail then asked the lawyer to check the case again. You have, reacting to the comments, declared that he had come just to help the court. Judge Commandkhail apologized if his words had offended Haris, who acknowledged that it was commendable that the court was carefully considering the case.
Judge Commandkhail emphasized the importance of the case, stating: “The most respected institution for us is Parliament. If there is an attack against Parliament, the trial is carried out in the anti -terrorist court, but if the attack is in a military installation, why is the trial held in a military court? Among what principle is this distinction made?”
The audience was postponed until Wednesday morning, with Khawaja Haris ready to resume his arguments.
