Judicial reforms essential for all courts, says Supreme Court judge

#Judicial #reforms #essential #courts #Supreme #Court #judge

On Friday, Supreme Court Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi emphasized the importance of reforms in all the courts, whether it be anti -terrorism or any other judicial institution, to improve.

“Reforms are very important for progress, whether they are concerned about the anti -terrorism court or anyone else,” he said during a hearing on the intercal appeal against the trial of civilians in the military courts.

Bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan – Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhil, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azar Rizvi, Justice Masrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal in justice raised questions about the difference between the citizens involved. Yes. And those who are responsible for the December 16 attacks.

Khawaja Ahmed Hussein – Former Chief Justice Jawad S. Khawaja’s lawyer – who opposed military cases, argued at today’s hearing.

He said that ordinary civilians do not get into trials. The lawyer also made it clear that he was not fully challenging the Army Act but was just a special aspect of it. He pointed out that Justice Muneeb Akhtar had cited the same argument in his decision.

On this, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhil said that there is a dispute over various possibilities in the FB Ali case.

Recalling his observation from yesterday’s hearing, he said, “Nowadays, there is also a theory that if a political party is involved in such actions, what should be done?”

Justice Hilali said that during the last hearing, the court is confident that military trials ensure a fair trial. This was the time when he asked about the difference between the people involved in the December 16, 2014 riots and the attack on the Army Public School, Peshawar.

In response, Hussein said those involved in the APS attack were linked to terrorist acts. He explained that an amendment should be made to facilitate their cases, after which legal action was taken against the accused.

The lawyer added that the Pakistan Army Act applies to civilian employees of the Armed Forces.

At this point, Justice Rizvi asked, “Does the Army Act apply to those who attack the airbase?”

In response to this question, Hussein cited the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) statement regarding the May 9 incidents. He said the army’s media wing issued a statement on May 9, 2023 about the May 9 incident.

He made it clear that he had no objection to the statement, but he highlighted that he had expressed grief and grief within the organization about the incident. The statement also mentioned the presence of undeniable evidence related to the May 9 incidents.

“How can a fair trial in a military court be ensured after such a statement?” He asked.

The lawyer emphasized that his case was not above the constitution. He said that legal action should be taken against the suspects on May 9, but not in the military courts, they argue that “the affected party cannot ensure a fair trial.”

Here, Justice Mazhar noted that the banning of section 2 (1) (D) (2) of the Army Act of the Army Act could affect matters like Indian spy clofoshan Jadhav case.

On this, Justice Rizvi asked where the anti -state spies would be tested in the future if the clause was removed.

Lawyer Hussain replied that such cases should be handled instead of anti -terrorism courts.

Justice Aminuddin expressed concern over the legal contradictions: “It is surprising to remove the legal clause by allowing exceptions in special matters.”

Justice Mazhar raised further questions whether Pakistan’s Armed Forces could use Section 2 (1) (D) (2) in the future, to which Hussein replied that it would no longer be applied.

He also pointed out sanctions in military trials and argued that in the Field General Court Marshal (FGCM), the accused could not choose his priority lawyer. He explained that in the court martial proceedings, legal representation is provided only with the approval of the Army Chief. If the Army Chief does not allow, the accused cannot hire the lawyer for his choice.

He further argued that one authority decides, while the other confirms it. He warned that under such a system, the authentic authority could abolish the “not guilty” decision and instead make the accused guilty.

At this point, Justice Hilali remarked: “You are discussing by the suspects who are not even present in front of us.”

Meanwhile, Justice Rizvi said: “According to you, no civilian should be tried in a military court but in the Anti -Terrorism Court. Currently, two and a half provinces of the country are affected by terrorism. There are also citizens in the country.

Subsequently, Justice Mandokhil said that the prevention of terrorism is the responsibility of the administration. “It is their duty to collect the evidence. If the court does not have evidence before, how can this decision give it? Then people claim that Pakistan’s judiciary is ranked 123th in the world.”

At this point, Justice Rizvi said reforms are essential for improvement, whether it is an anti -terrorism court or someone else.

Justice Mandukil remarked here that punishing an innocent person instead of allowing 100 guilty people to be liberated is a great injustice. “Our role is just to decide. The real justice is in the hands of God.”

On this, Justice Rizvi remarked that even if a murder is done in front of everyone, no one comes forward to testify. “Witnesses are not protected, and in cases of murder, lawyers take more than 25 dates for hearing.”

Justice Mandokil also raised the question whether the 21st Constitutional Amendment – which was implemented for four years and under which special courts were set up?

Later, the court adjourned the trial of civilians in military courts till February 3.