Islamabad: During the hearing of the army trials case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday cited the extension of General (R) Bajwa, highlighting the legal amendment of judicial interference as an example.
The court analyzed the bureaucratic memories involved in the expansion process, which indicates the legal implications of such decisions.
A seven -member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, resumed hearing of intra -court appeals challenging the jurisdiction of military courts against civilians.
During the proceedings, the extension of Bajwa’s reign was presented as an example of legal changes in court interference.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that there is no legal support for the extension of the former chief of the army at the moment and that he was regularly prepared only after the parliamentary legislation after the Supreme Court’s directives.
Justice Aminuddin Khan called back the hurry around the case and said, “At that time, everyone was sitting for the same information. It was our state.
In this case, lawyers saw questions about the legal stance of military trials for civilians.
Advocate Ozir Bhandari, who represented former Prime Minister Imran Khan, argued that there was a shortage of trained judges in the military courts and failed to ensure a fair hearing.
He noted that under the military judicial proceedings, even the right to appeal is limited to a mercy request before the army chief.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi challenged the theory, pointing to video evidence of attacks on military installations, saying that security was under the control of the military in such areas.
He advised that the military involvement justified the trial of the army under the legal framework of the army.
Justice Musarrat Hilali commented, “You discuss one thing, but your client has said something else.”
He only cited Khan’s past statements about dialogue with the power holders.
Bhandari refused to comment on his client’s remarks, keeping his attention to the legal aspects of the matter.
During the arguments, India’s military trial system was handed over. Justice Aminuddin Khan noted that the Indian law allows independent tribunals to appeals, and raises the question whether such rights were legislated by Parliament or was declared compulsory by the courts.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar pointed to the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian citizen under Pakistan’s military justice system.
He reminded the court that Pakistan passed the rights of Jadhav’s appeal only after the International Court of Justice’s decision and the consequent legislation.
Bhandari ended his arguments and said that the basic rights should be maintained in all legal proceedings.
The court adjourned the case till tomorrow, lawyer Faisal Siddiqui prepared to present the arguments at the following meeting.
