- The 21st amendment established military courts in wartime, explains the judge.
- Lawyers argue that the Army Act suspends fundamental rights for civilians.
- The act of the army extended to Including additional offenses, says the lawyer.
Islamabad: Justice of the Supreme Court Hasan Azhar Rizvi wondered if the offenses of May 9, 2023 are more serious than acts of terrorism.
His remarks came as a constitutional bench of seven members of the Supreme Court, led by judge Amin-Uud-Din Khan, heard the intra-cout appeal against the civil trials in military courts on Thursday.
During the procedure, the Council of the Ministry of Defense, Khawaja Haris, said that the military courts were not mentioned in the judicial system under article 175 of the Constitution and were rather established under A distinct recognized law.
In response, judge Jamal Mandokhail pointed out that the courts established under article 175 have a large jurisdiction, while the courts put in place under specific laws have a limited authority.
He added that the 21st constitutional amendment said the military courts had been created in war situations, and a constitutional amendment was necessary for the civil laws.
In response, the lawyer for the Ministry of Defense said that no amendment was necessary for trials; Rather, the army law has expanded to include additional offenses.
Judge Rizvi observed that the 21st constitutional amendment also mentioned the basic attacks of Mehran and Kamra. He wondered where the trials of those who attacked the general seat (GHQ) and the Kamra air base were carried out.
“Two Orion planes worth billions of rupees were destroyed-was May 9 more serious than these terrorist incidents?” He asked.
On the questions of Judge Hassan, the lawyer for the Ministry of Defense said that all the terrorists of the Mehran’s basic attack had been killed.
“Was there no investigation after being killed? Who were they? Where did they come from and how did they come?” Has the Mehran’s basic attack dossier was closed after the terrorists were killed? questioned the ricevi judge.
The GHQ attack affair was tried before the military courts and the trial took place before the 21st constitutional amendment, the Council said.
To this, judge Rizvi said that the constitutional amendment had been made on the basis of all the attacks so that there is no difficulty in the trial.
Judge Musarrat Hilali declared that the Constitution is the supreme law and questioned the distinction between those accused of civilians and the armed forces.
Judge Mandokhail noted that trials for civilians killed by the Rangers in Karachi and Turbat were conducted before civil courts.
Meanwhile, lawyer Khawaja Ahmed Hussain argued that when the Army Act is applied, fundamental rights are suspended. He stressed that a law had been promulgated to grant the Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav the right to appeal before the High Court, but ordinary citizens are refused this right.
He also said that the federal government said on several occasions that military court decisions would include reasoning, but it is now said that no reasoning is provided.
Hussain argued that article 8 (3) of the Constitution excludes the law of the army from the provisions of fundamental rights. He noted that article 8, paragraph 3, specifically mentions the members of the armed forces, clearly indicating that the law is intended for them and not for civilians.
He argued that if civilians were to be included, different label would have been used.
Judge Mandokhail then asked if, in this case, the article should not have referred only to the “armed forces” instead of “members of the armed forces”.
Hussain replied, stated that the mention of the “members” said that civilians could not be judged under the same arrangements.
Following detailed arguments, the court postponed the hearing until tomorrow (Friday).