Army Act applies strictly to armed forces as per Constitution: Justice Mandokhail

#Army #Act #applies #strictly #armed #forces #Constitution #Justice #Mandokhail

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokil has said that the constitution clearly states that the Army Act is related to the armed forces and understanding the purpose of this legislation will resolve half the case of hearing of military cases.

The remarks came as a seven -member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, in which Justice Mandokhil, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Naeem Afghan, Justice Musarrat Hilali heard the appeals of the intra -court. Civilians in military courts.

Last year, a constitutional bench of the Apex Court granted conditional permission to military courts to announce a verdict in cases related to 85 suspects – allegedly involved in the riots on May 9, 2023.

In its order regarding the appeals against the civilian military trial, the Constitutional Bench said that the decisions of the military courts would be subject to the decision of the High Court on the pending cases before.

Subsequently, military courts sentenced 85 PTI workers to “severe imprisonment” for two to 10 years, in which military installations and monuments were under military custody for attacks on May 9, in which military courts were involved in the May 9 protests. The end of the trial was identified for those who were identified.

Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) said in January, the army appealed to the mercy of 19 of the 19 of the 67 criminals convicted for “humanitarian grounds” in the May 9 riots. Accept

On October 23, 2023, a five -member bench, after challenging the trial of civilians involved in the May 9 riots, announced the trial of civilians in military courts.

During today’s hearing, Ozir Bhandari, a lawyer for Pakistan Tehreek -e -Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, presented his arguments.

He argued that even if the Army Act was canceled, there was a law of anti -terrorism. He added that when there were several legal forums, it would have to be determined where the basic rights of the accused can be ensured. He further argued that Article 245 of the Constitution did not give the army judicial powers.

On this, Justice Mandukil asked: “Isn’t the court martial judicial proceedings?” In response, Bhandari said that the court martial is really a judicial authority but only for the military personnel, not for ordinary citizens.

Meanwhile, Justice Aminuddin marked that a variety of civilians also fell under the Army Act and asked how it would be determined which citizens had come under its jurisdiction and which was not.

Here, Justice Mandokil noted that the Constitution has given two types of powers to the army – one for defense and the other to help the civilian government.

Justice Aminuddin added that if the argument based on Article 245 is accepted, then how will the army defend its institutions? He raised the question whether, in the event of an attack on the General Headquarters (GHQ), authorities will have to wait for Article 245 notification.

On this, Imran’s lawyer replied that if anyone was shooting, there was no need for permission for defense. He added that in the event of an attack, all the institutions, including the police and the army, take action.

He said that the Supreme Court has already fixed this point in the Liakot Hussain case, in a decision that if the army arrests an attacker, they will have to hand them over to the urban officials. However, military detention can help civilian officials.

Justice Afghan asked: “If a military officer and a citizen together violate the official secrets act, where will the trial be held?”

Lawyer Bhandari replied that the case will be heard in the Anti -Terrorism Court in this case.

This was the place when Justice Mandokhel remarked: “If we understand the purpose of creating the Army Act, half the problem will be solved.”

He added that the Constitution has clearly stated that it is a law on the armed forces. He noted that in disciplinary proceedings against a civilian officer, the punishment was not given, while the military courts were given this authority.

He further questioned: “If an army officer commits a crime during the holiday, where will the trial be? Is the jurisdiction of military courts very wide or limited?

He pointed out that in Karachi, the case of Rangers personnel was heard in a civil court.

Justice Mandokhel remarked that the constitution was made by Parliament, and the legislation can be made only in accordance with the constitution. He added, “No law can be made that contradicts the constitution. Our dilemma is that laws are sacrificed for politics.”

The Justice noted that lawyer Salman Akram Raja, who was representing a criminal, mentioned a separate forum for the court martial in India.

In response, Justice Mazhar said that in his view, Raja’s position was different.

Justice Mandokhel added that the court was not bound by arguments and could make decisions freely on the basis of the constitution.

He questioned: “If Parliament was attacked, will it set up a separate court to trial the case?” He said that the executive and the judiciary were kept separated under the constitution, while in the military trials, the complainant himself was the executive. “Can a complainant be a judge of their own case?” He asked.

Bhandari argued that if the Army Act allows civilians to trial, it can eventually add more crimes under it.

In response, Justice Aminuddin said: “You are referring to Article 245, but this is a completely different matter.” Meanwhile, Justice Mazar remarked: “Calling the army under Article 245 does not mean that he is given the option to run the courts.”

Justice Mandokil asked: “Can we reject the Prime Minister’s order?” On this, lawyer Bhandari said the court could do so.

After that, Justice Aminuddin remarked that no prime minister had ever completed the post of five years. Justice Hilali re -presented the comment that “there has never been a brave boyfriend who completed five years.”

Meanwhile, Justice Mandukil commented that “we have also given legal status to military dictators”.

Later, the constitutional bench adjourned the trial of civilians in military courts until yesterday.