SC judge questions stages if cases moved from military courts to ATC

#judge #questions #stages #cases #moved #military #courts #ATC

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned the stages of civilian cases on Monday if the cases were shifted from the military court to the Anti -Terrorism Court (ATC).

This question was raised during the hearing of intra -court appeals against the military trial of civilians before the constitutional bench of the High Court.

The bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Mazhar, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhil, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhil, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhil, Justice Hassan Azhar Naqvi and other judges, including Justice Naeem Afghan and other judges, had elected the lawyer of the civil society.

Justice Amin noted that the transfer of the suspects is a matter of record and he asked if the lawyer had challenged Section 94 of the Army Act.

Siddiqui replied that his crimes were not yet determined at the time of the custody of the suspects, and that the infinite discretionary power provided under Section 94 was also challenged.

He argued that a commanding officer initiates a handover application under Section 94, and that the decision officer has unlimited authority, unlike the Prime Minister, who has limited powers. He emphasized that there should be a structural framework for such powers.

On this, Justice Naqvi asked if the police investigations were slow against the military trials and asked if there was enough evidence to be handed over to the suspects. Siddiqui replied that the presence or absence of evidence is not a problem, but rather an absolute authority in the transfer of the suspects.

Here, Justice Mandukil asked if the ATC has the option to reject the handover request. To which, Siddiqui responded in confirmation. Justice Amin then remarked that such defense by the suspects could be chased before the ATC or in appeal.

Meanwhile, Justice Mazhar asked if the court had decided to request the commanding officer without informing the suspects.

On this, Justice Mandokhel pointed out that Section 94 only applies to these people under the Army Act, and after the ATC decision, the suspects came under the aforementioned law. He remarked that the ATC also has the authority to reject the commanding officer’s request.

Siddiqui argued that the decision to hold a judicial martial should be considered before the custody of the suspects, which was asked how a handover could be without the first decision of the court martial.

Here, Justice Naqvi asked if the request for custody by the commanding officer provided any reasons. On this, Siddiqui informed the bench that no reason was mentioned in the commanding officer’s request.

However, Justice Afghan intervened and said that the reasons were stated in the petition, especially citing crimes under the Act of Government Secrets.

Justice Mandokel noted that the methodology of filing a complaint under the Official Secret Act has been clearly stated in the Code of Conduct, for which the magistrate needs to record a statement and decide whether the investigation is necessary.

Siddiqui maintained that the complaint could be in the form of a matter and that only the federal government could file a complaint under the Act of Government Secrets. He added that any private person has no authority to file such a request.

This was the stage when Justice Mazhar raised the important question: “If the cases are transferred from the military courts to the ATC, where will the trial start? Will it start a new end, or will it be based on the evidence filed during the trial of the military?

Then, Justice Amin asked if requesting a past and closed transaction theory would confirm the military case. Siddiqui replied that under Article 245 of the Constitution, a military trial was challenged.

On this, the judge pointed out that Article 245 did not have an effect on May 9, but when the applications were filed, it was implemented.

Following these debates, the constitutional bench adjourned the hearing on intra -court appeals against civilians’ military trials until yesterday.