- Justice Mandokhil says Article 175 of the Constitution provides for military courts
Islamabad: On Wednesday, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi of the Supreme Court observed that after passing the records of the May 9 cases, it did not appear to those who were found in state security concerns.
These remarks came in the military courts during the hearing of the intra -court petition regarding the civilian case.
A seven -member constitutional bench comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Mandokhil, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Masrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, including Justice Mandokhel, Justice Masrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan. Contained.
At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Hilali asked if the allegations were made before the formation of the allegations. Justice Mazhar replied that the first investigation was carried out, after which formal allegations were made.
Defense Ministry’s lawyer, Khwaja Herses, added that the law clearly distinguishes between a trial and a fair trial.
Justice Azhar inquired whether an official appointed lawyer for a military trial was provided if he could not afford anyone, for which Hers confirmed that legal representation with state financing was available. Is
After that, Justice Mandokhil said that an accused is considered to be the “favorite child” of the court, and the question is raised whether it applies in military courts as well. The Defense Ministry’s lawyer assured that the accused had been given full protection under the rules of the Army Act.
Meanwhile, Justice Afghan said that as the Chief Justice of Balochistan, he has heard appeals against military court decisions and decisions were not issued on vacant papers which merely declared an accused guilty or innocent.
He added that when the cases were challenged in the high courts, the general headquarters provided full judicial records, including details of the evidence and procedures.
After that, Justice Rizvi asked if the civilian defendants or the media family had access to the military court proceedings.
On this, Harris informed the court that when the law mentions access to families and the media, security concerns are often banned.
The judge further asked if the military court judges had the first experience or had been appointed without anyone. He also raised the question whether the defense officer who presided over a case already has a legal experience and can a judge in the court martial in the Advocate Court. The lawyer confirmed that the judge’s lawyers always sit with the military judges.
Meanwhile, Justice Hilali raised concerns about the impact of such decisions on citizens, and said that society is already facing lawlessness.
Justice Mandokhel noted that sessions are appointed after decades of legal experience, while some recent cases show that the decisions of the eight judges benches have also been challenged by two judges.
He then asked if Article 175 of the Constitution provides for the military courts. Harris replied that it would be necessary to review the past military judicial decisions if such a clause was established. He added that military courts are in several countries and they are recognized by constitutional law.
Justice Mandokil also questioned why drug -related cases, which are under the army, need to be appointed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan for the trial. On this, the lawyer argued that military courts have been legally removed from Article 175 in all previous judicial decisions.
During the hearing, Justice Afghan directed the Ministry of Defense to present examples of military court decisions more than the May 9 cases. Hers presented a record in sealed envelopes and distributed seven copies of military court decisions in a bench of seven judges.
Harsi urged the court to investigate the trial process, saying that before the proceedings, the accused were asked if they had any objection to the presiding officer, and no one had raised any concerns.
However, Justice Mandokhel remarked that the records should be reviewed at the appeal phase, which makes it inappropriate for the court to estimate them at this stage. Justice Aminuddin assured that the Supreme Court would not allow the trial to be affected.
Meanwhile, Justice Rizvi advised that making the case record could reveal the people’s actions, which could allow the public to decide their behavior.
On this, the Defense Ministry’s lawyer replied that such decisions rest with the authorities.
Later, six judges of the Constitutional Bench returned the trial record, besides Justice Hilali.
