SC strikes down govt's plea to decide civilians' fate in military courts
Pakistan
A seven-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, conducts hearing of the case
Permission to announce verdicts will amount to recognising authority of military courts, contends Justice Musarrat Hilali
SC throws out former CJP's petition while imposing Rs20,000 fine on him
Court dismisses Hafeezullah Niazi's plea to shift his accused son Hassaan Niazi to jail
ISLAMABAD (Dunya News) – In a rather surprising decision, the Supreme Court's (SC) constitutional bench on Monday dismissed the federal government's plea seeking permission for the military courts to announce verdicts of civilians' cases.
A seven-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, conducted hearing of the case.
Other members of the bench were Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
"If we give permission to the military courts to announce verdicts, it will amount to recognising the authority of military courts," contended Justice Musarrat Hilali.
Former CJP fined
Besides, to the dismay of former chief justice Jawwad S. Khawaja who had filed a petition seeking the postponement of the hearings of cases related to the trial of civilians in military courts till the 26th Constitutional Amendment issue was decided, the SC threw out former CJP’s petition while imposing a fine of Rs20,000 on him.
Arguments
At the outset of the hearing, the court inquired Khawaja's counsel if he recognised the constitutional bench or not.
The counsel replied: "I do not accept the jurisdiction of the constitutional bench made after passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment."
Also Read: Military courts case hearing begins today
Justice Mandokhail interjected in a visibly displeased tone, saying: "Then you may leave the courtroom."
The counsel went onto say that the current constitutional bench was nominated by the Judicial Commission constituted by the government and opposition.
With the counsel already drawing court’s ire, Justice Mandokhail further inquired of him if the 26th Constitutional Amendment had been invalidated?
Joining the chorus, Justice Mazhar said: "You are only wasting court’s time by employing delaying tactics in every hearing."
"Even if the 26th Amendment is rescinded, judicial decisions will be safeguarded," asserted Justice Mazhar.
During the hearing, renowned TV personality and brother-in-law of former premier Imran Khan, Hafeezullah Niazi was called to the rostrum to present his arguments on the matter.
"Do you want this case to proceed further?” asked Justice Mandokhail to which Niazi nodded.
Justice Musarrat Hilali asked him to think about those languishing in jails, saying he lacked the legal ground to pursue the case.
Joining her, Justice Mandokhail added: "You are just delaying the court proceedings as no one among your dear ones is in the military’s custody."
New regulations of SC
Speaking about new regulations under which the SC was functioning after the enactment of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, Justice Mandokhail mentioned "All the benches are being constituted under the 26th amendment, and even the case related to the new amendment will also be heard by the constitutional bench."
In addition, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Salman Akram Raja, who is also a professional lawyer, argued that he also had certain objections to the judgement authored by Justice Munib Akhtar which, he said, he would argue.
Read More: IHC seeks response from federal govt on Imran Khan's possible military trial
Justice Rizvi asked how the trial of those involved in the Army Public School attack in 2014 had been conducted.
Defence Ministry counsel Khawaja Haris responded that the trial in the APS case was conducted according to the 21st Constitutional Amendment.
Meanwhile, the court dismissed Niazi’s plea to shift his accused son Hassaan Niazi to jail.
The additional attorney general told the court that the trials in military courts had been completed and sought permission to let the verdicts be announced as soon as possible.
Raising objection to the additional attorney general’s argument, Justice Hilali denied permission saying that doing so would effectively resolve the question of civilians' trial in the military courts.
