The Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court (SC) commented on Monday to control terrorism was the role of Parliament and not the Judiciary, during an Audience on Intra-Court appeals against the verdict of the Atx Court on the trial of civilians by the military courts.
In January, Khawaja Haris, the lawyer of the Ministry of Defense, informed the Constitutional Bank that the alleged intellectual authors and conspirators of the “conspiracy” of May 9 would be judged in the military courts. That day, the supporters of the founder of PTI Imran Khan had carried out violent protests throughout the country after their arrest, destroying state property and military torch facilities.
The SC judges questioned why the defendants were “specifically” tried in the military courts instead of the Anti -Terrorist Courts, with Judge Jamal Commandkhail observing that “the Executive cannot play the role of the Judiciary.”
During the hearing on Monday, the seven-members bank led by Judge Aminuddin Khan heard arguments of Haris, who challenged the judicial decisions, including some of former Judge Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqui.
“If a civilian damages military property, or steals a tank, they will violate the Army Law,” said Haris.
In response, Commandkhail commented that the first information reports (FIR) are presented for any criminal action, but the question was about where the suspect would be judged. Haris replied that legislators would decide where the trial takes place.
“We want to know how the FIR is presented, which investigates the case and what the procedure will be,” said Commandkhail.
Haris responded by stating that, by virtue of the Army Law, the Armed Forces have the power to arrest civilians, to which Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar commented that a signed must be presented before an arrest.
“When someone is arrested, they must appear before the relevant magistrate,” added Judge Hassan Azhar Rizvi.
Commandkhail declared: “According to section 2d of the Army Law, a suspect becomes a defendant only when an accusation is presented.”
Haris said the Constitution had “unique jurisdiction” to listen to the martials of the courts.
“According to you, the military courts do not fall in the category of article 175,” Mandokhail told Haris. “Tell us in which section of the Constitution are the military courts?”
Haris said there were many judicial decisions regarding the martials of the courts.
“The courts should only have seen if the trial agreed with the Constitution,” said Commandkhail. “Controlling terrorism is the work of Parliament, not the Court. The Court would think if the decision would reduce or increase terrorism, so it could not make a decision.”
The audience was postponed for March 8 (tomorrow), where you would continue its arguments.
In October 2023, the Constitutional Bank ruled that civilians could not be tried by the military courts and declared that the military judgments of civilians arrested following the disturbances of May 9 are null and null.
In December of that year, the SC conditionally suspended its October 23 ruling after taking 38 Intra-Court appeals, waiting for a final sentence.
