During the hearing on an intra -court appeal against the civilian trial in the military courts in the Supreme Court, Justice Aminuddin Khan, the head of the bench, remarked that from the first day, I have been saying that all the debris will embrace our throat.
A seven -member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan is hearing, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Masrat Hilali, Jasus Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan are part of the bench.
Founder PTI Imran Khan’s lawyer Azir Karamat Bhandari Raised Continuing the arguments said Even if the Army Act is banned, there is a law of anti -terrorism, if there are more than one forums, it is important to see where the protection of the basic rights of the accused will be ensured. Article 245 of the Constitution does not give the army judicial powers.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel inquired whether the court is not a martial judicial proceedings. Excuse Bhandari said that the court is a martial judicial authority but not just for civilians for civilians.
Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that a category of civilians also falls under the Army Act category, how will it be discriminated against which civilian Army Act and who is not, the reference to Article 245 is irrelevant in this case, the Constitution. I have given two types of powers to the army, one is to defend and the other is to help the civilian government.
Justice Aminuddin Khan questioned how the army would defend its institutions if they accepted the argument of Article 245. Will Article 245 not be awaited if the GHQ is attacked?
Lawyer PTI replied that no one would have to take permission to defend if there was any bullets. If the court has declared an army, the army will be handed over to the civil authorities, if they arrest an attacker,
The army can support civilian authorities with regard to the captured man, every institution gets powers from the Constitution.
Justice Naeem Afghan inquired if the military and civilian violate the Official Secret Act together, where would the trial be? Lawyer PTI replied that in such a case the trial would be in the Anti -Terrorism Court. Justice Jamal Mandokhel raised the question that half the problem would be resolved if it was understood that the purpose of creating the Army Act would be resolved. It is written that the law related to the Armed Forces.
Aziz Bhandari took the stand that Sub Section 3 of Article 8 is only for the Armed Forces.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that the punishment was not given in the disciplinary proceedings against the civilian officer, the military court was given the power to be punished. If the army officer commits a crime on leave, where will the trial Or is limited, the trial of Ranger personnel in Karachi is in the civil court, the constitution is formed, the legislature can be in accordance with the constitution, no law which cannot be compatible with the constitution.
Justice Musarrat Hilali inquired why the FB Ali case is so important, Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that our tragedy is that the law is sacrificed to politics.
Aziz Bhandari Article argued that the Military Trial Court accepted the 1962 constitution to Martial Procedure.
During the hearing, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi questioned the May 9 condemnation by the founder PTI and remarked that the army used to come to Karachi when a curfew was imposed. Attacks occurred.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi spoke with the excuse that you are the lawyer of the former Prime Minister and a party leader. Has the former Prime Minister condemned the May 9 incident that it went wrong? Has the court been condemned in his written reply?
Excuse Bhandari replied that the founder PTI’s miscellaneous application is part of the judicial record, the founder PTI condemned May 9 in his written objections, the founder PTI has said that those responsible should be punished. , Conducting also does not mean that the founder PTI recognizes the official position.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi remarked that it is a good thing to condemn, Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked if a Prime Minister could remain in office more than his stipulated period. Excuse Bhandari replied that the prime minister for five years cannot be six years.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that if you believe in court martial to the extent of the soldiers, then the matter went out of the circle of Article 175. Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that from the first day I have been saying that all the rubble together. Will put on
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said, “I think the bench is mixing the arguments of lawyers, Salman Akram Raja spoke of a separate forum for the court martial in India. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that Salman Akram Raja’s position in my view. It was different, Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that the court could not decide according to the constitution.
