Islamabad:
Judge Aminuddin Khan has indicated that the misuse of a law does not justify its cancellation.
“The Blasphemia law was also being used. To stop this manipulation, it was later decided that an investigation of such a case was carried out by an officer of the range of the Superintendent Police,” said the judge while directed a constitutional bank of seven members (CB) of the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The Bank learned of the intra-cat appeals filed against a verdict of the Supreme Court that annulled the trial of the disturbances of May 9 in the military courts in October 2023. Its order.
Arguing against the appeals, the famous lawyer and leader of PTI, Salman Akram Raja, declared that the ruling of the Apex Court in the FB Ali case was in line with the Constitution of 1962. In case FB Ali, an SC bank of five members had allowed the trial of a civilian in a military court.
Judge Jamal Commandkhail asked about the powers of the military courts under the 1952 army law asking if a person who is not part of the army could be judged in a military court only on the basis of his crime. Raja responded that in the FB Ali case, it was stated that the judgment of civilians in the military courts is only allowed if fundamental rights are guaranteed.
Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked how FB Ali, who was a civilian, was martial.
Salman Akram Raja responded that the court had ruled that ensuring that it was necessary to guarantee fundamental rights and that there was no violation of fundamental rights in the trial.
He said the FB Ali case discussed article 2 (d) (1) of the army law of 1952 and affirmed that the law introduced through a presidential ordinance was valid, while claiming that it could be reviewed under fundamental rights.
Judge Commandkhail asked about the definition of “link” in the FB Ali case.
Salman Akram Raja replied that he was referring to inciting the Armed Forces. He argued that the FB Ali case had been interpreted in a way that gave the impression of allowing the establishment of separate courts.
Judge Aminuddin Khan said that Salman Akram Raja was arguing against the main decision. In response, Raja mentioned that Judge Ayesha Malik’s ruling was also relevant.
Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar then questioned why the sections of the 1952 Army Law had been declared void. Raja said that the appeals are presented against judgments, not for reasons, and that the courts can modify reasons while maintaining the operational part of the ruling, which occurs regularly.
Judge Commandkhail recalled that in 1968, an ordinance granted judicial powers to a Tehsildar in Baluchistan, but when it was challenged in the Supreme Court in the case of Azizullah Memon, the court demolished it. He added that the practice continued for 14 years even after the 1973 Constitution.
Raja argued that the law changed in 1987 with the introduction of clause 3 of article 175. He affirmed that if the court confirmed the decision of Judge Ayesha Malik in article 10-A, it would be a victory for its argument.
Similarly, he said that even if the Court ruled that a court could not be established outside clause 3 of article 175, it still supports its position.
Later, the court postponed the hearing until next Monday.
