ISLAMABAD: A seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on Monday rejected the government’s petition seeking permission for military courts to announce case verdicts.
“Giving permission to announce verdicts would mean recognizing the authority of military courts,” remarked Justice Musarrat Hilali during the hearing.
Headed by Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan, the bench also includes Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
During the hearing, the court questioned Khawaja’s counsel, asking: “Do you recognise the constitutional bench?”
In response, the counsel said: “I do not accept the jurisdiction of the constitutional bench.”
Justice Mandokhail, addressing this remark, said: “Then you may leave the courtroom.” The counsel further asserted that the current constitutional bench was nominated by the Judicial Commission.
At this, Justice Mandokhail inquired whether the 26th Constitutional Amendment had been invalidated? He was joined by Justice Mazhar, who observed: “You are employing delaying tactics. At every hearing, some new request emerges.”
“If the 26th Amendment is annulled, judicial decisions will be safeguarded. Even those detained under military courts desire this outcome,” added Justice Mazhar.
The bench then called Hafeezullah Niazi to the rostrum. Justice Mandokhail asked him: “Do you wish to proceed with this case?” Niazi affirmed: “Yes, I want to proceed.”
Addressing him further, Justice Musarrat Hilali asked him to consider those languishing in jails; you lack the legal standing to pursue this case. Justice Mandokhail added: “You are delaying proceedings because no loved one of yours is in custody.”
Justice Mandokhail clarified that the SC was functioning under the constitutional amendment. He explained: “All benches are being formed under the new amendment, and even the case concerning the amendment will be heard by a bench constituted under it.”
Furthermore, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Salman Akram Raja, who is a lawyer by profession, told the bench that he also had objections to certain parts of the judgment authored by Justice Munib Akhtar and would present his arguments on the matter. Justice Rizvi inquired how the trial of those involved in the Army Public School attack had been conducted.
In response, Defence Ministry counsel Khawaja Haris explained that the trial was conducted following the 21st Constitutional Amendment. Justice Mandokhail added that at the time, a constitutional amendment had been made to allow military courts to try civilians. The court dismissed Hafeezullah Niazi’s request to transfer the accused to jail.
