- Latif Khosa says Apex Court was in trial in case.
- Justice Justice Aminuddin disagrees, says SC will decide under the law.
- Justice Mandokhail asks if old rules were still useful.
The Supreme Court Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked Wednesday why military courts were not canceled in the 21st constitutional change.
The judge, part of the seven-member constitutional bench led by justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the intra-court appeal against the trial against civilians in military courts.
Representing Aitzaz Ahsan during the hearing, lawyer Latif Khosa opposed arguments that were made the previous day by Salman Akram Raja, where he said Raja was also his lawyer. He said Raja disagreed with Justice Munib Akhtar’s decision, while he fully agreed with it and had not given Raja such instructions.
Meanwhile, Raja clarified that he only disagreed with a section of Justice Munib’s decision and said he stood by his arguments made a day earlier, adding that the impression created in the media was misleading.
Raja said that Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan said his issues related to the absence of an international ban on civil court giant was widely highlighted in headlines.
To this, Justice Afghan said that his questions were clear and advised against paying attention to social media as they did not do it themselves.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail noted that the media should be careful about reporting, while Justice Musarrat Hilali declared that although she would often answer news about her, her attitude as a judge allowed it.
Continued Khosa continued that the whole nation saw the case and claimed that SC itself was in trial. However, justice Aminuddin disagreed and noted that the court was not in trial and would decide under the Constitution and the law.
The adviser also claimed that the Holy Qur’an and Islamic Doctrine also emphasized judicial independence and referred further cases from Islamic history.
In response, Justice Mandokhail said that legal independence existed even in the era with the Rashidun caliphs.
According to the lawyer, section 2 (d) was against Islamic doctrine and that military lawsuits were held in secrecy.
However, Justice Amin-out replied by saying that Khawaja Haris had already explained that a proper procedure for fair attempt existed and it was a separate topic if it was not followed.
When he pointed out Khosa’s extensive career in politics, Justice Mandokhail asked what steps he had taken to terminate section 2 (d) in his time in various key positions, adding that parliament was free to abolish it if needed.
Khosa claimed that all legislation against Article 175 had been canceled in the past. Justice Mazhar questioned why military courts were not declared invalid in the 21st amendment.
Khosa replied that the amendment was not canceled due to wartime conditions and its two-year border.
During the consultation, Justice Hilali noted that Parliament approved the 26th amendment, but – Khosa – the courts to declare it invalid. Justice Mandokhail asked if Khosa had voted against the constitutional change, as the lawyer replied that Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (PTI) had not participated in the vote.
Justice Mandokhail noted that it was Khosa’s duty to oppose it and play his role.
In addition, Khosa also questioned why the police had not stopped the mob – involved in the riots on May 9. At this, Justice Hilali asked if he would instead see bodies – because of the confrontation between the law enforcement and the people.
After Khosa ended his arguments, PTI founded Basicer Imran Khan’s lawyer, Uziir Bhandari, his arguments and agreed on all arguments except Raja’s objection to part of Justice Munib’s decision.
Justice Mazhar asked why Parliament had then introduced the law on practice and procedure and why they could not go beyond their review authority.
Justice Aminuddin also questioned why a larger bench had been formed if it was only a review that Bhandari replied that seven new judges heard the appeals.
Justice Mazhar noted that the Court of Appeals existed in other laws and that Bhandari’s arguments differ from Rajas. He also suggested to review the scope of intra-Court appeals to future cases.
Meanwhile, Justice Mandokhail noted that the 26th constitutional change had brought a new setup and questioned whether the previous rules were still in force and warned against forcing the right to an uncertain situation.
Justice Mazhar pointed out that decisions under Article 184 had harmed people in the past and that parliament had therefore given the right to appeal.
Justice Afghan said that even if Bhandari’s argument was accepted, his post would have ended and he seemed to defend the main decision.
The court later postponed the hearing of the case until Thursday (tomorrow).
