(24News) During the hearing of the case related to the trials of civilians in military courts in the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel remarked that the accused was being acquitted by the anti-terrorism court while he was being punished by the military court. Is any specific evidence provided?
A 7-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the case related to the trial of civilians in military courts. Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan are included.
Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris continued his arguments today and said that Article 233 was misinterpreted while declaring the military trial of civilians null and void. were suspended.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that in this case there is nothing to do with the suspension of fundamental rights, the rights were suspended during Pervez Musharraf era by not giving the right to appeal, on which Khawaja Haris said that according to Article 8(3) where mention is made Yes, they believe, Justice Aminuddin Khan raised the question that there is no emergency in this case?
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that there must be an emergency to suspend fundamental rights, it is a different matter whether civilians can be tried or not.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that the Supreme Court in its judgment invalidated Article 233 of the imposition of emergency, Article 233 had nothing to do with the case of military courts, to justify the interpretation of Article 8(5) of Article 233. Under Article 233, the President can impose emergency and suspend fundamental rights.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that emergency was imposed during Pervez Musharraf’s period as well. Fundamental rights cannot be enforced by courts during emergency. There are Supreme Court decisions on this point that the court can use its authority. .
Justice Aminuddin Khan said that fundamental rights can be defended in the courts, only enforcement is suspended. Justice Musrat Hilali said that in the current case, when the accused were taken into military custody, fundamental rights were not suspended, nor was the state of emergency enforced.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that the decision of the Supreme Court has said that stopping the implementation is equivalent to suspending fundamental rights, Article 233 does not talk about suspending fundamental rights, Article 233 talks about suspending fundamental rights in case of emergency. has gone
Justice Jamal Mandukhel remarked that the President has the authority to suspend the fundamental rights, the Executive executes the order of the President, all these powers belong to the Executive, so how can anyone else see such matters.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel while talking to Khawaja Haris said that former Chief Justice Ghulam Muhammad Mirza had told the lawyer that the arguments were good but I was not impressed, I have the same suspicion with you in this matter.
During the hearing, the Constitutional Bench raised questions on the military trial of only certain accused on May 9, Justice Musrat Hilali inquired that who decides the jurisdiction, whose trial will be in military courts and who will not?
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that the FIR of all the accused of May 9 was the same. How did this distinction happen? Some will be tried in the military court and some in the ATC? Sir, how many suspects were there yesterday on May 9? Show any ATC order related to the accused who were sent to military courts.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel asked who initiates the process of taking military custody? Justice Musrat Hilali said that give an example where a military trial of a civilian has taken place without suspending the constitution.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi said that there were terrorist attacks on various installations including GHQ, Karachi base in the past, tell us where the trial of these attacks was done? There was a case of conspiracy to hijack the plane of an army chief, Khawaja Sahib, that case went to the common court, you were the lawyer of one side, the trial of all of them went to the common courts, then what did the people of May 9 do to go to the military courts? ?
Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar said that give us one FIR of all these cases.
During the hearing, the case of Indian spy Kulbhushan Yadav was also mentioned. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that the Supreme Court declared the clause 2D of the Army Act null and void in the central decision. , Can the case of an anti-national spy like Kulbhushan Yadav be tried in military courts?
Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris said that even anti-national spy cannot be tried in military courts by the Supreme Court decision.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel asked why we are not strengthening our prosecution system.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi said that a Korean plane was destroyed in a terrorist act in Karachi, there were testimonies, an army chief was on a foreign visit in the plane conspiracy case and an attempt was made to hijack his plane.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel said that it was just an allegation, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi said where all these cases were conducted, provide us the data of such incidents, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan said that you are carrying a basket full of questions. .
Justice Jamal Mandukhel said that while the accused is being acquitted by the anti-terrorism court, he is being punished by the military court. Is there any special evidence provided in the military courts? Why are the anti-terrorism courts not strengthened? Courts have to decide only after seeing the evidence.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi inquired whether the May 9 incident is a more serious crime than terrorism, which is being tried in a military court. If you have good investigating officers and prosecutors, there will be punishments from the courts.
Later, the hearing on the intra-court appeal against the decision to trial the civilians in the military courts was adjourned till tomorrow.
Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris will continue arguments tomorrow.