SC judge questions if ‘May 9 offence’ more serious than terrorist incidents

#judge #questions #offence #terrorist #incidents

ISLAMABAD: Raising questions on the trail of civilians in military courts, Justice Hassan Azar Rizvi of the Supreme Court on Thursday asked whether the alleged crimes of terrorist terrorist acts by PTI supporters on May 9, 2023. Are more serious than?

These comments came as a seven -member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan.

During the proceedings, the Defense Ministry’s lawyer, Khawaja Herses, said that under Article 175 of the Constitution, military courts were not mentioned within the judicial system and instead was established under a separate recognized law.

In response, Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that the courts set up under Article 175 have a wide range of jurisdiction, while the authority of the courts under specific laws is limited.

He added that the 21st Constitutional Amendment states that military courts were set up in combat situations, and constitutional amendments were needed to hear the trial of civilians.

In response, the Defense Ministry’s lawyer said no amendment was needed for trials. Rather, this amendment extended the Army Act to add additional crimes.

Justice Rizvi observed that the 21st Constitutional Amendment also mentioned the Mehran and Kamra base attacks. He questioned where the trials of the attackers were attacked at the General Headquarters (GHQ) and Kamra Airbus.

“Two oranges worth billions of rupees were destroyed – could 9 crime more serious than these terrorist incidents?” He asked.

On the questions of Justice Hassan, the Defense Ministry’s lawyer said that all the terrorists of the Mehran base attack were killed.

“Was there no investigation after they were killed? Who were they? Where did they come from and how did they come?” Was the Mehran base attack closed after the terrorists were killed? Justice Rizvi questioned.

The lawyer said that the GHQ attack was tried in military courts and the case took place before the 21st Constitutional Amendment.

On this, Justice Rizvi said that the constitutional amendment was made on the basis of all the attacks so that no problems could be made in the trial.

Justice Masrat Hilali said the constitution is a high law and has raised questions about the difference between civilian and armed forces.

Justice Mandokhel noted that cases were heard in civil courts for civilians killed by Rangers in Karachi and tribes.

Meanwhile, lawyer Khwaja Ahmed Hussein argued that when the Army Act is applied, basic rights are suspended. He pointed out that a law has been enforced to give Indian spy cliffshan Jadhav the right to appeal to the High Court, yet ordinary citizens have been denied this right.

He also said that the federal government has repeatedly claimed that the decisions of the military courts would include reasoning, but now it is being said that no reasoning has been provided.

Hussein argued that in Article 8 (3) of the Constitution, the Army Act was not excluded from the basic rights provisions. He noted that Article 8 (3) has specifically mentioned members of the armed forces, which makes it clear that the law is for them and not for ordinary citizens.

He said that if ordinary citizens were to be included, different words would be used.

After that, Justice Mandokhil asked what, in this case, the article should have been referred to only the “Armed Forces” instead of “members of the Armed Forces”.

Hussein responded with affirmation, saying that the mention of the “members” made it clear that under the same provisions, citizens could not be tried.

After detailed arguments, the court adjourned the hearing till tomorrow (Friday).