Islamabad:
During the hearing of the intra-court appeal against the decision to try civilians in military courts in the Supreme Court, Justice Hassan Rizvi remarked that the court wants to see how the evidence was decided in the trial.
A 7-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the case.
The arguments of the Ministry of Defense's lawyer, Khawaja Haris, are ongoing, in which he said that if Section 2(1) D1 is found to be correct, what will be the result? If the sections of the law are found to be correct, these petitions against the trial were inadmissible. The entire procedure is followed in a military trial.
Justice Hassan Rizvi said that the court asked you for the records of the military trial cases. The court wants to see how the evidence was decided in the trial.
Khawaja Haris took the position that he would show the court the record of a case for review. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that the court had to see the procedure and whether the requirements of a fair trial were met in the military court.
Khawaja Haris said that neither the High Courts nor the Supreme Court can review the merits. Justice Hassan Rizvi said that the court should not discuss the evidence presented in the trial. The court only wants to review the evidence. Under natural justice, no one can be punished without being heard.
Khawaja Haris said that if the sections of the law are found to be valid, the petitions will be inadmissible and the court cannot review the sentence on the basis of fundamental rights.
Khawaja Haris argued that the five-member bench did not properly assess the point of admissibility, the court cannot even review the trial record on its merits, the accused in the FB Ali case had retired from service when the crime was committed, the right to life and a fair trial have been there from the beginning.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that even if there is no Article 10A of Fair Trial, the procedure must be followed. Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked whether fundamental rights have been withdrawn in Article 8(3).
Khawaja Haris took the position that this article has been included in the constitution since 1973. In the FB Ali case, a review of the fair trial of the accused was also conducted, where Article 8, subsection 3, was applied and fundamental rights were abolished.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that the question is whether the law on military trials of civilians can be amended. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that
The article on fair trial came in 2010, the Criminal Code is from 1898, the Criminal Code has given full procedure to the trial.
Justice Musarat Hilali said that why was there a need for Article 10A of the Fair Trial? Khawaja Haris argued that various articles of the Fair Trial existed before Article 10A.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel raised the question of what is the purpose of enacting the Army Act. Is the purpose of the act to establish discipline in the armed forces or to check criminal activities?
Khawaja Haris took the position that the purpose of the Army Act is to ensure that there is no hindrance in the activities of the armed forces. Justice Jamal Mandokhel inquired whether these problems would not have arisen if separate legislation had been enacted for criminal activities. Khawaja Haris replied that the process of improving the law continues.
Justice Naeem Afghan remarked that the Army Act deals with officers and soldiers of the Armed Forces, and was amended in 1967 to include 2 sections.
This amendment added the words "any person" to the law. With the inclusion of these words in the law, retired officers also came under the purview of military trial. If this 2-in-1 nullity remains, then no retired officer will be able to have a military trial.
Justice Naeem Afghan further said that with the repeal of the section, FB Ali will also become bigger. If the section remains repealed, if a military trial of a retiree is underway, it will also end. Even after the inclusion of 10A in the Constitution, fair trial is still discussed in the courts today.
Justice Naeem Afghan said in his remarks that retired officers were tried in military trials before the amendment to the law. It seems that the words "any person" included in the law were not correctly defined. Perhaps this mistake has been made in the law. A constitutional amendment had to be made for the trial of civilians.
Khawaja Haris said that the constitutional amendment was made for some other reason.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court asked the Ministry of Defense for details of the civilian's military trial so far.
Justice Aminuddin Khan said that apart from Kulbhushan, please provide the data on how many civilians have been tried so far.
Along with this, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the Military Courts case until tomorrow.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said, "Let's try to complete the arguments tomorrow." Khawaja Haris said, "I will do my best."
Note= This Contact Copy Express News
Note = This Contact Copy Express News
Post a Comment