Islamabad:
The judges at the Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court commented on Thursday that the incidents of May 9, 2023 crossed all the limits, and emphasized that the court would have to see the law of Pakistan and not any foreign legislation.
During the hearing of the Intra-Court appeals against the decision of the Apex Court against the trial of civilians in the military courts, the seven members bank, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan, asked the lawyer Salman Akram Raja. Audience on February 18.
Raja continued his arguments on Thursday. During the hearing, the judges asked him several questions about military trials, and the sentence of the Supreme Court and the incidents of May 9. In his arguments, Raja gave the examples of the martial process of the Court in India and Great Britain.
“We have to investigate our own law, not Britain, is wasting time,” Judge Khan told the lawyer. Raja told the court that he presented the examples of British law in the context of a free and transparent trial.
Sitting at the bank, Judge Musarrat Hilali said that in the intra-cat appeal a request had been made to restore the repealed provisions. Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail said that the real question in the case was whether a civilian could be martially martial under the current system.
In that, Raja replied that the martial court of civilians was not possible in any case. He also said that if article 175 (3) of the Constitution had been in force at the time of the FB Ali case, the trial would not have gone to a military court.
Judge Aminuddin Khan said that in the central decision, the case of FB Ali had not been declared void and void under article 175 (3). Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that when there was no request to declare the decision of the Null and Null FB Ali case in the main case, how the bank could do so in the appeal.
Raja replied that the hands of the court were not tied; I could investigate the case. About that, Judge Commandkhail asked the lawyer to what extent the bank could be in the appeal. Judge Mazhar commented that “we can give separate reasons, if we do not agree.”
Judge Hilali asked the lawyer if he admitted that the crime of May 9 had been committed. Raja said he would inform the court on that. Judge Hilali commented that the limit crossed on May 9, and now he was remembering the fundamental rights.
Raja argued that article 184 (3) could not be limited, and that the defendant had the right to an independent court and a fair trial. Judge Khan commented that for a fair trial, one would have to go beyond article 183.
Judge Khan asked if a crime was committed, the punishment would be the same, so there was a military trial, and the other defendants were excluded from him. Raja replied that depriving a person of a just trial when making accusations was a matter of fundamental rights.
Judge Mazhar said it was not like arresting someone and taking him to a military trial, adding that in a normal FIR, the defendant would be arrested for mere accusations. He also said that the former Law of the Law of Official Secrets was only against espionage, new crimes had now been added.
Judge Hilali told the lawyer that when the 21st Constitutional amendment was approved, his party, the Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (PTI), supported the establishment of military courts. About that, Raja said that in court he did not represent any political party.
On that judge Hilaali reformulated his observation, saying that a political party also supported the military courts under the 21st amendment. Salman Akram Raja replied that the party was wrong at that time. To this, Judge Hilali said that how did he say now that it was wrong?
Judge Commandkhel said that a good thing about the 21st amendment was that it did not apply to political parties. That Allah has mercy on Judge Azmat Saeed, who wrote the decision on the case of the 21st amendment. Later, the audience was postponed until February 18.
