ISLAMABAD
During the hearing of intra court appeal against trial of civilians in military courts, Justice Musarrat Hilali has questioned what is difference between civilians of APS attack and May 9 protest.
Justice Amin ud Din Khan has remarked there are no two opinions that no law against the constitution can stand.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi remarked we daily listen that so many jawans were martyred. The attackers are civilians. According to you the trial of civilians should be conducted in Anti Terrorism Court (ATC) and not in military courts. How the accused will be tried in the wake of annulment of 2d12, Certain provinces are in grip of terrorism at present in the country. There is no movement of Makti Bahni in the country but attackers are civilians.
A 7-membere bench of Supreme Court (SC) constitutional bench headed by justice Amin ud Din Khan took up the case for hearing Friday.
Khawaja Ahmad Hussain counsel for former Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Jawad S Khawaja argued in the court that it was said in the communiqué of Corps Commanders conference pain and anguish prevail in the entire institution over May 9 incident. Irrefutable evidence are available of this incident. How can fair trial become available in military trial after corps commander conference communiqué. Civilians don’t fall under ambit of military trial.We are not challenging the entire army act.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that how could they deviate from judicial decisions like the F.B. Ali case, in which legal provisions were upheld. The 21st Amendment decision was made by seventeen judges. He stated that it is worse to convict an innocent person than to let a hundred guilty ones go free, and that only God can deliver justice. He shared a personal experience of being a target of terrorism, where a bomb blast nearly claimed the lives of several judges in his convoy. He emphasized that without evidence, the accused must be acquitted, and if that doesn’t happen, the judiciary would be criticized.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi remarked that no one can be convicted without evidence. He noted that witnesses are afraid to testify, and cases are adjourned multiple times due to lack of testimony, especially in murder cases.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail noted that the 21st Constitutional Amendment was intended for four years and led to the formation of special courts. He asked if the amendment had achieved any benefit.
Hearing of the case was adjourned till Monday.
