- SC hears an intra-haired call against civilian civil laws.
- Mandokhail judge questions the scope of the army law in private matters.
- Hearing of the seven members bench until tomorrow.
Islamabad: Judge of the Supreme Court Jamal Mandokhail wondered on Wednesday if a member of the armed forces, committing an offense at home, would be the court of the army law.
The remarks came as a constitutional bench of seven members, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan, heard intra-caps on Wednesday against the military trials of civilians.
Lawyer Salman Akram Raja, lawyer for convicted Arzam Junaid, presented his arguments in court.
During the hearing, Raja argued that the case involved two questions, one of which was linked to article 175. He declared that the doors would not be closed with regard to fundamental rights.
Judge Mandokhail asked whether the merger of fundamental rights with a specific act could lead to their violation. He also wondered if a soldier, marrying a second time without the consent of his first wife, would be tried before a military court.
Raja responded by calling the army law of “black hole”, arguing that any modification could compromise fundamental rights. He argued that for an infringement of the army law, the offense must be directly linked to military service.
By providing an example, Raja said that even if the flight of kite is prohibited in Punjab, a military officer engaging the act when he is not subject to a military trial but rather to a civil law.
Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan, while addressing Raja, said that during the mandate of his party (Pakistan Tehreek-E-insaf), there was active law on the army law. Raja, distancing himself from the legislation, said that he had always stayed in opposition and was not part of the PTI at the time.
During the procedure, Raja also referred to the 1975 FB Ali affair, where article 2 (1) d) of the army law was discussed for the first time.
Judge Muhammad Mazhar Ali asked why the Supreme Court has repeatedly examined Article 2, paragraph 1, 1) d), to which Raja replied that legal frameworks are evolving, requiring legal examination. He added that article 8 (3) does not provide no exception for article 2, paragraph 1, d).
The Afghan judge noted that an order for article 2, paragraph 1) (d), had been introduced in 1967 and wondered if his expiration made him obsolete. Raja a countered by quoting the official law on secrets, which has been in place since 1923, granting trials under its provisions before 1967.
Judge Mandokhail pointed out that in civil services, the employees found guilty of fault are rejected but not punished. However, in the armed forces, the staff can be dismissed and legal sanctions. He also asked for the clarity of the scope of the army law.
Judge Mazhar wondered where a spy was to be tried, while judge Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked where a citizen would be tried if he had secrets to the enemy states.
Raja replied that these trials are the official law on secrets, which describes legal proceedings for prosecution.
The lawyer assured court that he would not present arguments contrary to the Constitution, claiming that fundamental rights could not be revoked arbitrarily.
“He cannot be a commander just demands a suspect and he is awarded,” he said.
Judge Mazhar stressed that a bench of five members had already canceled article 2 (d), judging that suspects of espionage could no longer be tried before the military courts. However, he noted that civilian army employees are still under the jurisdiction of the army law.
After the conclusion of today’s arguments, the seven members’ bench postponed the hearing until tomorrow (Thursday).