• Constitutional bench belongs to the pleas for military trial.
• Gen Ziaul Haq conducted military trial against FB Ali: Attorney Zuberi.
• Justice Mandokhail says the military’s job is to defend the country.

Islamabad: The Supreme Court Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar has observed that neither the armed forces nor the military court are part of the judiciary, nor is it written in any judge judgment that the military court is part of the judiciary.

His remarks come as a seven-member constitutional bench of the pointed right-wing by justice Amin-out-Din Khan-heard on Wednesday the federal government and the Ministry of Defense’s pleas against the military trial against civilians as constitutional.

The other members of the bench were justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Mazhar, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.

Presentation of his arguments on behalf of former officers carriers in the Supreme Court, Advocate Abid Zuberi said that FB Ali was a hero from the war in 1965, but he was accused of abusing his office after retirement. “How could a retired person use his office?” He was wondering.

He continued to say that Gen Ziaul Haq conducted a military trial against FB Ali, but then he himself released him in 1978.

To this, Justice Mandokhail said Gen Zia did what FB Ali would do.

Justice Mazhar said there were two objections raised over the military courts – military litigation is not impartial, and those who perform military lawsuits lack legal experience.

When asked whether military courts are part of the judiciary, lawyer Zuberi said the army courts are part of the executive.

“What do they have to do with the executive,” Justice Mazhar asked. Attorney Zuberi replied that the army should fight on borders.

Justice Mandokhail said the military’s job is to defend the country.

Justice Mazhar: “Are you accepting the military courts. In that case, the results will be very different. Justice Muneeb Akhtar did not write military courts [in the verdict] As a court. There is no clarity about the military courts in any judgment of the court. “

Justice Mandokhail said the military court was not mentioned in section 2 (d). However, it was written in the section that the trial of an offense would take place, but a forum is not explicitly mentioned. He said, adding that the courts of terrorism are expressing judgments if there is evidence against the defendants.

Justice Mazhar asked the lawyer to first accept that military courts are part of the judiciary before they demand to separate them from the judiciary. “The armed forces are not part of the judiciary; It is not written in any court ruling that the military court is a judiciary, ”the judge added.

Justice Mandokhel said the word Court Martial has been used in the law, but not in the military courts.

Attorney Zuberi claimed that only civilians who are part of the army can be corrected in military courts.

In the presence of Article 10a and Article 4, a court of martial arts is not possible. According to Section 2D, Underklause 3A of Article 8 does not apply to the defendant, he added.

After hearing the arguments, the hearing of the case was postponed until tomorrow (Thursday).