• Courts could not be established beyond Article 175 (2). 3, argues Raja.
• Claims that legal authority must be exercised in penalties.
• Justice Rizvi compares Corps Commander’s House Attack with Syria.

Islamabad: Supreme Court’s Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi on Tuesday noted that vandalism had taken place inside the Lahore Corps Commander’s House on May 9, 2023, noting that actions with arson and destruction had now become a tendency.

The comments were made during the hearing of a seven-member constitutional bench led by justice Amin-out-Din Khan during an intra-law’s appeal against military lawsuits with civilians.

Representing convicted accused Arzam Junaid, presented arguments to the court, lawyer Salman Akram Raja claimed that the most important judgment stating that courts could not be established outside Article 175 (2) of the Constitution. 3.

In response, justice noted Muhammad Ali Mazhar that in Service Cases, initial consultations are conducted at the departmental level.

Raja also claimed that Article 175 (2). 3, should also apply to the Army Officers. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed that the Constitution was adopted in 1973 and that the 18th amendment had undergone martial arts regulations.

“Why do you want SC to intervene in questions that are the responsibility of parliament?” He asked.

Justiceafghan added that the question would be investigated if a military officer was involved and called for the lawyer to remain within the limits of the said case.

He also mentioned that India had changed its laws through parliamentary legislation. Meanwhile, Justice Rizvi pointed out that recordings of the May 9 events had been broadcast on television and highlighted the damage caused by the Corps Chief House.

He noted that breaking into houses and damage property had become a culture, which made comparisons with incidents in Bangladesh and Syria. At this, justice commented Jamal Khan Mandokhail that entering every citizen’s home was also a crime.

Justice Rizvi then questioned whether there had ever been similar attacks on corps ‘houses’ houses all over the world. In response, Raja declared that such attacks had happened and that he could give examples.

Justice Mazhar asked if the legal concerns raised in previous court decisions had been dealt with through legislation. Justice Mandokhail noted that Parliament seemed to be preoccupied with other issues, stressing that discussions held in court should instead take place in parliament.

Raja claimed that the legal authority should be practiced in the criminal trial, with reference to previous decisions made by Balochistan High Court, who protected civilians during a camping.

He also referred to a significant decision by Justice Waqar Seth (late) from Peshawar High Court, even mentioned by the international Court of Justice, but later suspended by SC. He reiterated that no court could be established beyond Article 175 (2). 3.