Islamabad:
The judges on the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court noted on Thursday that incidents on May 9, 2023, crossed all boundaries and emphasized that the court should provide for Pakistani law and no foreign law.
During the hearing of the Intra Court of Justice, against the pointed right-of-way decision against the trial against civilians in the military courts, the seven-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, asked the lawyer Salman Akram Raja to end his arguments on the next date consultation on 18 .
Raja continued her arguments on Thursday. During the hearing, the judges Raja asked several questions about military litigation and the Supreme Court’s judgment and the events on May 9. In his arguments, Raja gave the examples of the court’s martial arts in India and the UK.
“We have to investigate our own law, not from the UK, you are wasting time,” Justice Khan told the lawyer. Raja told the court that he presented the examples of the British law in connection with a free and transparent trial.
When Justice Musarrat Hilali was sitting on the bench, a request had been made in the intra-legal appeal to restore the canceled provisions. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said the real question in the case was whether a civilian could be the court fought under the current system.
At this, Raja replied that Court Martial for civilians was not under no circumstances. He also said that if Article 175 (2). 3, in the Constitution had been in place at the time of the FB Ali case, the trial would not have gone to a military court.
Justice Aminuddin Khan said the FB Ali case had not been declared invalid under Article 175 (2). 3, in the central decision. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that when there was no request to declare the FB Ali case decision Invalid in the main field how the bench could do it in the appeal.
Raja replied that the hands of the court were not bound; It could investigate the matter. On this justice, Mandokhail asked the lawyer to what extent the bench could go into the appeal. Justice Mazhar noticed that “we can give reasons separately if we do not agree”.
Justice Hilali asked the lawyer if he admitted that the crime on May 9 was committed. Raja said he would inform the court about it. Justice Hilali noted that the border was crossed on May 9, and now he remembered the fundamental rights.
Raja claimed that Article 184 (2). 3, could not be limited and that the defendant was entitled to an independent court and a fair trial. Justice Khan noted that for a fair trial, one should go beyond Article 183.
Justice Khan asked if a crime was committed that the penalty would be the same, so how there was a military trial and the other accused was excluded from it. Raja replied that it was a matter of fundamental rights to deprive a person by making allegations.
Justice Mazhar said it was not like arresting anyone and taking him to a military trial and adding that the defendants in a normal four would be arrested on mere claims. He also said that the old law of the official legal law was only against espionage, now new crimes had been added to it.
Justice Hilali told the lawyer that when the 21st constitutional amendment was passed, his Parti-Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (PTI) supported the creation of military courts. At that, Raja said he did not represent a political party in court.
On this justice, Hilali reformulated her observation and said that a political party also supported military courts under the 21st amendment. Salman Akram Raja replied that the party was wrong at the time. To this, Justice Hilali said how he said now it was wrong.
Justice Mandokhel said that a good thing about the 21st amendment was that it was not used for political parties. May Allah have mercy on Justice Azmat Saeed, who wrote the decision on the 21st change case. Later, the hearing was postponed until February 18.
