Supreme Court says it is not under trial in military courts case

Justice Aminuddin Khan on Wednesday remarked that the Supreme Court is not under trial; it has to decide according to the constitution and law.Justice Khan gave the remark during hearing of intra-court appeals against the trial of civilians in military court.A seven-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Khan and including justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan is hearing appeals.At the outset of hearing, Aitzaz Ahsan’s counsel Latif Khosa submitted that Uzair Bhandari was to argue today. But, he requested him (Bhandari) and he allowed me to present his arguments.Justice Khan allowed Khosa to proceed.The justice told Khosa that Aitzaz Ahsan objected to Salman Akram Raja’s arguments given on Tuesday as he (Raja) is also his lawyer. Aitzaz said that Raja had disagreed with Justice Muneeb Akhtar’s decision; but he completely agreed with the decision.Justice Mazhar observed that his objection was probably with regard to the decision on Article 63 A. Raja said that he had disagreed with only one paragraph of the decision. He said he was arguing yesterday as Arzam Junaid’s counsel and he stands by his arguments. “An impression was given in the media as if I did not know what I have said. Your question was put in the headlines that there is no prohibition of court martial of civilians in international laws.”Justice Afghan suggested him to avoid following social media. “We should not be influenced by social media otherwise it would become difficult [for us] to give decisions.”Justice Mandokhail remarked that the media should also be careful while reporting.Justice Hilali said that there have been a lot of news against her. She wanted to reply to allegations [against her], but her status does not allow her to answer.Advocate Raja said that he stood by his arguments. Justice Khan remarked that questions are asked to understand different points of view.Aitzaz objected that the number of his application was changed despite the fact that he filed the application before Jawad S. Khawaja who is a former chief justice of Pakistan.Advocate Khosa started his arguments and said that the eyes of the entire nation are on this case; Because of this case the Supreme Court is under trial. Justice Khan replied that the Supreme Court is not under trial.Advocate Khosa said that judicial decisions are quoted as precedence. Justice Mandokhail asked him to argue the legal status of Section 2 D.Justice Khan asked him not to relate Section 2 D with May 9 and 10. He told him to first present his views independent of the section, and then argue whether Section 2 D applies to May 9 or 10 incident.Advocate Khosa submitted that fundamental rights have been protected in the constitution. Section 2 D cannot be maintained. He argued that the formation of military courts must be seen in historical context.He said that the Section 2 D was introduced in 1967. It dismembered Pakistan. The Hamoodur Rehman Commission report mentioned that it created hatred against the institution.Justice Mandokhail questioned is there any prohibition on making laws in the constitution? Khosa replied that they had to introduce the 21st Amendment for military courts. “Civilians cannot be tried in military courts. Judges and proceedings are not independent in military trials. That’s why a judicial commission was demanded on May 9 incident,” added Advocate Khosa.Advocate Khosa said that he had been struggling for the rule of law. The Section 2 D is against Islamic teachings; Military trials are kept secret.Justice Khan said that Khawaja Haris had argued that there was a complete procedure for a transparent trial [in military court].Justice Mandokhail reminded Khosa of his “long political profile” and said that he had been a federal minister, senator, member of the assembly, governor and attorney general. “What steps did you take to repeal Section 2 D while holding these positions?”The justice observed that he would not mind if parliament revokes this section.Justice Hilali said his stance in parliament is different and in the court he talked about something else.“Military courts were formed later; the reasons for the fall of Dhaka were different,” she added.Khosa said that “we want a strong army who has the support of masses. We want the army to get out of the issue of trials.Advocate Khosa submitted that you [the judges] knew how the 26th Amendment was passed. Give the decision, and we will implement it. You will be revered by the public if the trial of civilians in military court is over. The 26th Amendment was passed through the use of force.Justice Hilali questioned him had any member resigned on the passage of 26th Amendment? Khosa replied that Akhtar Mengal tendered his resignation.Justice Mazhar asked him why military courts were not declared void in the 21st Amendment. Khosa said that the 21st Amendment was n