The constitutional bench member Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail noted on Tuesday that it was not necessary for the court to rely solely on the arguments of any party; Rather, the court could exercise its powers to provide “complete justice.”

The court heard an intra-court appeal against a former judgment of the parlor that prevented military courts from trying civilians. During the consultation, the over 50 year old FB Ali case was also referred to.

FB Ali, a retired Brigadier, was tested by a military court in 1975 for trying to overthrow the then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. His appeal was rejected by a five-member Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice Hamoodur Rahman.

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, sitting on the bench, observed that the FB Ali case was decided during the 1962 Constitution, which means it could not be seen through the lens of the 1973 Constitution.

The Ministry of Defense’s lawyer Khawaja Haris noted that in the FB Ali case it was stated that military attempts were justified. Justice Mandokhail replied and pointed out that it was argued in the FB Ali case that Article 6 (2). 3 of the 1962 Constitution had been discussed, although Haris replied that it had not been discussed in this case.

Justice Mandokhail then asked the lawyer to review the case again. Haris, who responded to the comments, said he had only come to help the court. Justice Mandokhail apologized if his words had offended Haris, who acknowledged that it was commendable that the court carefully considered the case.

Justice Mandokhail emphasized the importance of the case and said, “The most respected institution for us is parliament. If there is an attack on parliament, the trial of the anti-terrorism may be held, but if the attack is on a military installation, why is the trial held in a military court?

The hearing was postponed until Wednesday morning, when Khawaja Haris was ready to resume her arguments.