- Justice Musarrat Hilali questions the difference between civil and armed forces accused
Islamabad: On Thursday, a large bench of the Supreme Court resumed hearing on intra -court appeals (ICAS) against hearing cases canceled by civilians in military courts.
A seven -member bench headed by Chief Justice Aminuddin of the Constitutional Bench as well as Justice Jamal Mandokhel, Justice Masrat Hilali, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azar Rizvi, Justice Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan.
Defense Ministry’s lawyer Khwaja Harris completed his arguments in the matter, while he argued that the courts mentioned the courts in Article 175.
He added that military courts were not mentioned under this article in the judicial system.
Continuing his arguments, he said that the military courts were established on a separate law.
Justice Rizvi observed that the 21st Constitutional Amendment also mentioned the Mehran and Kamra base attacks.
He questioned where the trials of the attackers were attacked at the General Headquarters (GHQ) and Kamra Airbus.
“Two oranges worth billions of rupees were destroyed – could 9 crime more serious than these terrorist incidents?” He asked.
On the questions of Justice Hassan, the Defense Ministry’s lawyer said that all the terrorists of the Mehran base attack were killed.
“Was there no investigation after his death? Who were they? Where did they come from and how did they come from? Was the Mehran base attack closed after the terrorists were killed? Justice Rizvi questioned.
The lawyer said that the GHQ attack was tried in military courts and the case took place before the 21st Constitutional Amendment.
On this, Justice Rizvi said that the constitutional amendment was made on the basis of all the attacks so that no problems could be made in the trial.
The lawyer replied that all the terrorists who attacked the Mehran base were killed. Justice Rizvi inquired whether there was no investigation after that. Who were they, where did they come from and how? Was the Mehran base attack file close after the terrorists were killed?
Justice Masrat Hilali said the constitution is a high law and has raised questions about the difference between civilian and armed forces.
Earlier, at the beginning of the proceedings, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel observed that his comments were misunderstood during the hearing of intra -court appeals against civilians in military courts on Wednesday.
Justice has observed that his remarks have been reported in the media that two judges have rejected the decision of eight judges. “Many judges contacted me about the news. I don’t care about the media, but the record should be straight.
He said he made this statement in a general sense. Justice made it clear, “In my observation yesterday, I mentioned the people, not the judges, but some media colleagues misused him.”
Continuing his arguments, Khwaja Harsh, a lawyer for the Ministry of Defense, deals with the establishment and work of the courts in Article 175. He added that military courts do not fall under the article.
Military courts are formed under a separate law, the lawyer said.
Justice Mandokhel observed that the powers of the courts formed under Article 175 are broad, while the jurisdiction of the court formed under a specific law is limited.
Justice remarked, “The 21st Amendment decision clearly states that military courts were formed in a war situation and for this purpose, the constitution should be amended to try citizens.”
Advocate Herses argued that amendments to the trial of ordinary citizens do not require amendments as the amendment added more crimes to the Army Act.
The hearing adjourned till Friday.
