Islamabad:
Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench (CB) has observed that the court match should not be mixed with martial arts as the latter is completely unacceptable and an extraconstitutional measure,
A seven-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan on Thursday, the hearing of the intra-legal appeals resumed against October 2023 order from a Supreme Court bench declaring trial against May 9 rebels in military courts invalidly.
During the case, the Supreme Court’s Bar Association (SCBA) presented its written arguments to the court. According to the submissions, SCBA held a meeting on March 5 to consider its position on military courts.
The association stated that civil litigation should not in principle be implemented in military courts. It also noted that the provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, have been maintained as constitutional in legal interpretations and cannot be declared invalid at this time.
SCBA said terrorism is intensified and that Pakistani citizens deserve peace and harmony. Therefore, all constitutional and legal measures should be directed at the eradication of terrorism.
Represented by the Lahore Bar Association and Lahore High Court Bar Association, lawyer Hamid Khan claimed that the Pakistan Army Act was introduced in May 1952 when Pakistan was governed by the Indian government’s government.
He said the country’s first constitution was adopted in 1956 and introduced fundamental rights for the first time and added that the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, was first changed in 1967.
He said that the first conspiracy case in Pakistan, Rawalpindi -Association Case, was initiated in 1951.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi noted that even figures like poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz were involved in Rawalpindi -Association Case. Continued his arguments stated Hamid Khan that in order to prosecute the defendant, Rawalpindi Conspiracy Special Trial Act of 1951 was introduced.
The purpose of the conspiracy was to establish a communist system in Pakistan. The defendant included both military staff, such as General Akbar Khan and civilians. However, their trial was not made in a military court, but under a special court.
At this time, justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned the relevance of these historical examples of the current military trial and asked what connection the introduction of martial arts had with the present case. “The Constitution does not allow martial arts,” he added.
