Supreme Court annulled the trial of civilians in military courts. While suspending the decision to declare, he has remarked that the military courts can try the accused but the final decision will be subject to the orders of the Supreme Court. had declared, a five-member larger bench headed by Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan gave a reserved verdict on the petitions filed against the trial in the military courts of the civilians arrested for involvement in the violent protests of May 9. Civilians in the military courts in the Supreme Court. A hearing was held on the intra-court appeals against the annulment of the trial. A 6-member larger bench headed by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood held the hearing. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan is included. At the beginning of the hearing, prominent lawyers including former Chief Justice Jawad S. Khawaja, Aitzaz Ahsan, Latif Khosa and Salman Akram Raja objected to Justice Sardar Tariq Masood. Latif Khosa said while talking to Justice Sardar Tariq. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood inquired from the lawyers of the parties that he had been given notice by anyone. Salman Akram Raja said that the case will be affected if the objection is raised after the notice. Latif Khosa said that Justice Sardar Tariq has given his opinion on the applications of military courts in his note. Justice Sardar Tariq asked the lawyers which What is the objection? Salman Akram Raja replied that the objection was made by Jawad S. Khawaja. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood refused to leave the bench on the objections and remarked that I am not leaving the bench, what will you do? Lawyers read the decision of Justice Jawad S. Khawaja, it is the will of the judge to remain a part of the bench or excuse himself from hearing. Justice Tariq Masood further remarked that Jawad S. Khawaja has his own decision that the judge decided to refuse to hear the case. It is discretionary, I do not separate myself from the bench, sorry. Latif Khosa said that despite our objection, you are sitting and hearing the case, on this Justice Sardar Tariq Masood inquired whether you should stand and hear the case. ?During the hearing, the Attorney General became angry, he said that when there is no notice, how can the objection be heard? Those who objected are not in the court itself, it is better to start the hearing on the bench appeals first. Meanwhile, the court started the hearing on the appeals, the court directed the lawyers of the parties to sit on the seats. Lawyer Shamail Butt opened the arguments on the appeal, during which Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan also came to the rostrum.
Aitzaz Ahsan said that the decision on the objection should be made first whether you want to sit in the bench or not, Justice Sardar Tariq remarked that I am not doing it, refuse to hear and go ahead. Justice Mian Muhammad Ali Mazhar appealed to Shahada Forum. While talking to the lawyer, he remarked that you will have to amend the application after the detailed decision. Justice Sardar Tariq directed the Attorney General to start the arguments, the Attorney General said that I want to give time to Khawaja Haris first. Later, Khawaja Haris came to the rostrum on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. Justice Tariq Masood remarked that the provisions of the Army Act were declared unconstitutional in the judgment. are unconstitutional, the judgment is silent on the matter, the provisions of the Military Act were upheld in the FB Ali case. Correctly, the Supreme Court has said in a nine-member bench decision that if the crime is related to the army, it can be tried in a military court. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked what is your opinion about a transparent trial? How will the trial in the military courts be made a fair trial? Khawaja Haris, defense counsel, said that civilians include people like Kulbhushan Yadav, the jurisdiction over civilians was already limited in the Army Act, the provisions related to civilians. It cannot be annulled. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood remarked that the detailed decision has not come before us, should we give the decision without seeing the detailed decision? Justice Irfan Saadat inquired whether Khawaja Haris should not wait for the detailed decision. ? On this, Khawaja Haris said that then my request will be to allow the trial of those who are in military custody, every civilian is not being tried in military courts, only those civilians who are a threat to national security will be tried in military court. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood remarked that let the reasons for the decision come, we have to see what opinion has been given in the decision on these points, Justice Irfan Saadat remarked that it would be appropriate to wait for the detailed decision. Khawaja Haris said that If we have to wait for a detailed decision, then the court order must be suspended. 104 people have been in the custody of the army for 7 months, it would be appropriate for the accused to complete their trial. gave the decision of the military courts, he is also a judge of the same Supreme Court, the detailed decision declaring his trial invalid has not come and how the trial will be conducted again.Justice Mian Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired that what is the hurry in this case? The Attorney General said that it is urgent that the trials of foreign terrorists are not being conducted. Justice Musrat Hilali inquired that if the arrested people are terrorists, why are they acquitting them? The Attorney General said that these people are their own citizens, they have just gone astray. Meanwhile, the court reserved judgment on petitions against declaring the trial of civilians in military courts invalid. Later, the Supreme Court suspended the October 23 verdict by giving a safe verdict. The court delivered the verdict by a majority of 5 to one. The Supreme Court remarked that the trial of 103 people involved in the events of May 9 will continue, the military courts will not issue a final verdict against all the arrested suspects. The Supreme Court remarked that the military courts can try the accused but the final decision will be subject to the orders of the Supreme Court. The court adjourned the hearing of the case until the third week of January and issued notices to the parties. It should be noted that on October 23 this year, the Supreme Court declared the military trial of civilians in military courts null and void. A five-judge larger bench in May reserved judgment on petitions filed against trial by military courts of civilians arrested for their involvement in the May 9 violent protests. Promulgating the judgment, it was said that sub-clauses one and two of Section D2 of the Army Act are invalid. The judgment said that Section 59 (4) of the Army Act is also invalid. 1 of the Supreme Court. The majority judgment of 4 said that all 103 people in military custody will not be tried in military courts. Any trial in the military courts will have no legal status. The decision was given by the majority of 1-4 and Justice Yahya Afridi disagreed with the majority decision. Against this decision, the supervisory federal government, Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Law, 17 appeals have been filed including the Caretaker Government of Punjab, Caretaker Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Caretaker Government of Balochistan. On November 17, the Caretaker Federal Government and the Ministry of Defense challenged the Supreme Court’s decision to nullify the trial of civilians in military courts. It was requested to annul the decision not to try the accused of attacks on army installations in military courts. In the intra-court appeals, the position was adopted that the petitions decided by the five-member bench of the Supreme Court were inadmissible and the army The repeal of the Act and the provisions of the Official Secrets Act will cause irreparable damage to the country. In addition, the governments of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have also challenged the decision to stop the trial of civilians in military courts. It was argued in the petition that The decision not to try the accused of attacks on army installations in military courts should be annulled. Later on November 21, the caretaker government of Punjab also challenged the decision to declare the trial in military courts unconstitutional. On December 9, the military The intra-court appeals against the annulment of the trials of civilians in the courts have been fixed for hearing on December 13 (today). I have objected to the presence. Justice (R) Jawad S. Khawaja objected that the Supreme Court formed a 9-member bench related to special courts, at that time Justice Qazi Faiz Isa and Justice Sardar Tariq excused themselves from listening. In his note dated June 26, he had opined that the matter should have been challenged in the High Court. In light of the August order, the court is being informed of the commencement of the trials. The federal government said in a separate application that 102 persons were arrested in light of the incidents of May 9 and 10, taking into account the interest of the detainees. The trial is being conducted and whoever is not found guilty in the trial in the military courts will be acquitted. According to the separate application, the trial in the military courts will be subject to the verdict of the ongoing case in the Supreme Court. After the military trial, the convicted persons will be able to approach the relevant forum against the punishments as per the law. And he was arrested under the Official Secrets Act, the arrested persons are involved in the attack on GHQ Rawalpindi, Corps Commander House Lahore, PAF Base Mianwali, ISI Civil Lines Faisalabad, the arrested persons are Hamza Camp, Bannu Camp and Gujranwala. are in custody for their involvement in the attack on the camp. Remember that the last hearing of the case against the trial of civilians in the military courts was on August 3, during which the then Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Atta Bandyal remarked that The armed forces will not be allowed to take ‘unconstitutional measures’.While earlier the Supreme Court had rejected the request to constitute a full court to hear the case.
The case was heard by a 6-member larger bench headed by former Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Atta Bandial comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Syed Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha A. Malik. Petitions were filed by Chairman PTI, former Chief Justice Jawad S. Khawaja, renowned jurist Aitzaz Ahsan and Civil City against trial of civilians under the Army Act in military courts. On June 20, Jawad S. Khawaja, in a petition filed through his lawyer, Advocate Khawaja Ahmed Hussain and Advocate Uzair Chaghatai, requested that the trial of civilians by military courts, which are ordinary courts, be declared unconstitutional and various sections of the Army Act be declared unconstitutional. are inconsistent with the fundamental rights given in the Constitution, which should be declared null and void. Prior to this petition, 5 civil society members from different cities through their lawyer Faisal Siddiqui filed a petition to declare the trial of civilians in military courts as illegal in connection with the May 9 violence. Similarly, on June 18, the leader of Pakistan People’s Party and senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Aitzaz Ahsan, filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the trial of civilians involved in the May 9 incidents in military courts. On behalf of Aitzaz Ahsan, lawyer Salman Akram Raja had said in the petition that the federal government played the role of a rubber stamp on the decision of the Corps Commander of the trial in the military courts, the trial of the civilian is in conflict with Section 2 and 59 of the Army Act. Sections 2 and 59 of the Army Act should be repealed. On June 21, former Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Atta Bandyal constituted a 9-member larger bench under his chairmanship to hear 4 petitions filed against the prosecution of civilians under the Army Act in military courts. On July 21, during the hearing of the case against the trial of civilians in military courts, Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial had remarked that the trial of the accused in military courts should not be started without informing the Supreme Court. Will call the parents. It should be noted that on May 9 this year, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) arrested PTI Chairman Imran Khan with the help of Paramilitary Force Rangers in the Al-Qadir Trust case, after which violent protests took place across the country. damaged military installations, including the residence of the Corps Commander Lahore, and state property across Pakistan. After the incident, the army termed the day as a ‘dark chapter’ in the country’s history and vowed to bring to justice all those involved in the vandalism. Later, taking more stringent measures, the government decided to bring to justice those responsible for attacks and arson on civilian and military installations under relevant laws, including the Pakistan Army Act and the Official Secrets Act. The decision was also endorsed by the National Security Committee, the country’s highest forum for coordination on national security issues. Later on May 20, the Army Chief had said that the legal process of the trial against the planners, instigators, encouragers and criminals involved in the May tragedy would be according to the existing and established legal procedures derived from the Constitution, the Pakistan Army Act and has started under the Official Secrets Act. It should be noted that in a news conference on May 26, the then Federal Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah said that 33 accused have been handed over to the military authorities in only 6 cases related to May 9. Later, the then Prime Minister of Law Nazir Tarar said that the trials under the army rules met internationally recognized requirements, which are the basis of a fair trial.
