
Islamabad:
Justice Jamal Mandokhel of the Supreme Court's constitutional bench remarked that the crime of May 9 has occurred, but the court decision did not give a clean chit to the crime of May 9. The question is about the trial, where will the trial take place?
A seven-member bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard intra-court appeals against the trials of civilians in military courts, with Ministry of Defense lawyer Khawaja Haris presenting arguments.
Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris argued that the Army Act and Rules provide for a complete procedure for a fair trial. Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked which decision of the military trial you agree with?
The defense ministry's lawyer said that he does not agree with any decision. Justice Ayesha Malik declared Section 2-1-1 as contrary to fair trial, while Justice Afridi did not express an opinion on the legal sections. Justice Yahya Afridi said that he is bound by the decisions of the larger benches on the legal sections.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked what was the majority decision in the 21st Amendment? Khawaja Haris replied that the majority decision in the 21st Amendment was of 8 judges, the majority of the judges upheld the amendment in their own way. Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that the 21st Amendment was declared correct by more than 8 judges.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that the Supreme Court's decision in the Liaquat Hussain case related to the military trial is of 9 judges, and the FB Ali case was confirmed in the Liaquat Hussain case. Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that in the 21st Amendment case, the majority of judges have recognized the FB Ali case.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked whether any judge in the 21st Amendment case gave an opinion on judicial review of the FB Ali case? Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris said that no judge said that there should be a judicial review of the FB Ali decision. Justice Yahya Afridi gave an opinion on the May 9 military trial that the federation was not fully heard on the provisions of the Army Act.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked whether the Attorney General's notice 27A was given on the provisions of the Army Act. From Justice Yahya Afridi's note, it seems that the Attorney General was not heard.
Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman said in his arguments that the bench had asked the Attorney General to focus the arguments on the events of May 9 and 10 rather than the provisions of the Army Act.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that this is strange. First, it was said not to discuss the provisions of the Army Act, and then the provisions were declared null and void.
The Additional Attorney General said that Advocate Faisal Siddiqui had stood up in court and said that we did not challenge the provisions of the Army Act.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, while talking to Faisal Siddiqui on the video link, said, "Have you heard this?"
Advocate Faisal Siddiqui said that yes, I had said that the case should be considered under the Constitution instead of the Army Act. Other petitions were filed against the May 9 incidents in which the provisions of the Army Act were challenged.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that before declaring Sections 21D1 and 21D2 of the Army Act null and void, the federation should have been given the right to a full hearing. The court's focus was on the incidents of May 9 and 10, and not on the provisions of the Army Act. There is a difference between protest and attack.
Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that the order of July 21, 2023, only mentioned May 9.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that the crime of May 9th has occurred, but the court decision did not give a clean chit to the crime of May 9th. The question is about the trial, where will the trial take place?
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that crimes are written in the law book, if the crime fits into the Army Act, then the trial will be in a military court. Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that the 21st Amendment states that cases of political parties will not be tried in army courts.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that there is a limit to political activity, attacking state property and violating state security is not political activity.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that without the 21st Amendment, there could not have been a military trial against terrorists. Khawaja Haris said that the legislation in the 21st Amendment was based on various other crimes and individuals.
Justice Hassan Rizvi said in his remarks that tearing the uniform of a police officer is a crime, here the house of the Corps Commander Lahore was burned, there were attacks at different places at the same time on one day. There were attacks on military camp offices, the Radio Pakistan building was burned in Peshawar.
Justice Hassan Rizvi said that in the past, people used to protest at liquor shops or the Governor's House, but this is the first time that attacks have taken place in different cities at the same time. There is no denying the crime.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that if the Parliament was attacked, why wasn't a military trial held? Parliament is the supreme court of all. Doesn't Parliament consider an attack on itself an insult?
Justice Hassan Rizvi said that the Supreme Court was also attacked, which was also serious, the Supreme Court should also be included. Khawaja Haris said that here it is a matter of 2-on-1.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi said that if one armed personnel and six civilians kill someone, the civilian's trial will be held separately, while the armed personnel will be court-martialed.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that in the Namai incidents, whether the place where the attacks took place was a prohibited place is a question of facts. What was the intention of the attackers is also a question of facts. The Supreme Court cannot review the facts.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that we have not stopped any person convicted in the above incidents from appealing or appealing for mercy. Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi said that such material can be shown, it was the deeds of those who entered and carried out the attacks.
The Additional Attorney General said that we have also provided photographic evidence. Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi said that the damage to property is visible in the photographs, was any defense personnel injured or, God forbid, did anyone die?
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that the attackers were armed and attacked, and people were injured by the armed men. He said that he would provide further legal assistance in this regard.
Justice Musarat Hilali said that what happened to the trial of civil crimes listed in the FIR? On May 9, I was the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court. There was heavy firing on the road leading to Cantt. The police stopped me from going further.
Justice Musarat Hilali said that at that time, fear was spread in the society, a weapons shop was looted there, the shopkeeper suffered losses, what happened to the trial of the theft at that shop?
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that there were 18 sections in an FIR, three crimes out of 18 were related to the military court, where was the trial of the remaining 15 crimes? Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that the military court will also try the remaining crimes.
The Supreme Court adjourned the trial of civilians in military courts until Monday.
Justice Aminuddin Khan said that he would hear the case for the entire day on Monday. Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that if possible, the case should be taken to Tuesday.
Justice Naeem Afghan said that we have delisted all the cases. Justice Musarat Hilali said that Khawaja Sahib, you promise every day to complete the case and then break it.