SC judge asks why military courts have not been destroyed against the 21st Amendment

Islamabad – Justice Muhammad Ali Majar on Wednesday questioned why military courts have not been canceled in petitions filed against the 21st Amendment.

The seven-member Supreme Court constitutional bench, led by Justice Amin-Ud-Tin Khan, conducted an inquiry into the Supreme Court ruling on the Supreme Court on the Supreme Court by military courts.

Latif Kosa, who represents Barrister Ichsz Ahsan, argued that the entire nation was looking at the case, saying that the SC was in trial. However, Judge Aminuddin said that the court would not be in trial and would decide on the constitution and law.

The consultant further argued that the Qur’an and the Islamic teachings also emphasized the freedom of the judiciary and that the events mentioned from the history of Islamic history.

Responding to this, Justice Mandokail said that the judiciary was independent in the era of the Rashidin Caliphs. Section 2 (d) is against Islamic teachings and that military tests have been carried out in secret.

However, Justice Amin-Ud-Thin responded that Khawaja Haris had already explained that there was a proper practice for reasonable trials, and if it was not followed, it was a separate issue.

Pointing to Kosa’s comprehensive life in politics, Justice Mandokail asked what action was taken to cancel Section 2 (E) in various key positions, and that Parliament was free to cancel it if necessary.

Kosa argued that all laws against Article 175 were canceled in the past. In the 21st Amendment, Justice Mashar questioned why military courts were not null and void. Kosa replied that the amendment was not canceled due to the wartime conditions and its two -year limit.

During the hearing, Judge Hilai noted that Parliament had approved the 26th Amendment, but the Kosa courts wanted to declare it zero and void. The lawyer replied that Judge Mandokail asked whether Gosa voted against the constitutional amendment, and that Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) did not participate in voting.

Judge Mandogil noted that it was Kosa’s duty to oppose it and play his role. Kosa said the police did not stop the gang involved in the May 9 riots.

In this, Judge Hilali asked if he would like to see the bodies instead – due to the clash between the law enforcement and the people.

Subsequently, Kosa opposed the arguments made by Salman Akram the previous day, saying that Raja was also his lawyer. The king did not agree with the decision of Justice Munip Akhtar, while he fully accepted it and that the king did not give any such instructions.

However, the king made it clear that he did not agree with the decision of Muniphin, and said that he stood in favor of his arguments a day ago, and that the thought in the media was false.

Speaking on the occasion, Justice Naeem Akhtar said that his question about the lack of international ban on public court-packedness has been widely highlighted in headlines.

For this, Judge Afghan said his question was clear and advised against the focus on social media as they did not do so.

Judge Jamal Khan Mandokail said that the media should be alerted to report, while Justice Muzurd Hilali said that even though he wanted to respond to news about him, his position as a judge did not allow it.

After Kosa concluded his arguments, BTI founder Imran Khan’s lawyer Usir Bhandari presented his arguments, and part of the decision of Justice Munipin, with all the arguments except the king’s objection.

Judge Mashar asked why Parliament introduced the practical and practical law and why they could not go beyond their review authority.

Judge Aminuddin questioned why a large bench was created if only a review was, and Bandari replied that the seven new judges were investigating the appeals.

Judge Majar noted that the rights of the appeal were in other laws and that Bandari’s arguments differ from the king. He further recommended to review the purpose of internal-court appeals for future cases.

Meanwhile, Justice Mandokail noted that the 26th Amendment had brought a new system and questioned whether the previous rules would be applicable and warned that the court was forcing the court into a dangerous situation.

Judge Masher pointed out that the verdicts under Article 184 have been harmful to the people in the past and therefore granted the right to appeal the Parliament.

Although Judge Afghan’s argument was accepted, his submissions were complete, and he seemed to protect the main verdict.

Subsequently, the court adjourned the hearing of the case to date.