We have no connection with any company or political party: Judge Hilali

The judgments of military courts on simple paper are not correct: SC

Islamabad -Pakistan’s Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench on Wednesday ordered the defense ministry’s lawyer to end the arguments.

The seven-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Amin-Ud-Tin Khan has asked for internal-court appeals (ICAS) against the Supreme Court ruling on public trial by military courts. Judge Amin said he would listen to the controversy of the consultations of the respondents after K Haris.

During the hearing, Khawaja Haris, a lawyer representing the Ministry of Defense, explained to the Constitutional Bench on the rules and procedures adopted by military courts. He said there are many protections in the investigation of military courts. Judge Naeem Akhtar said that when Afghanistan was the chief justice of the Balochistan High Court, he said he had the opportunity to investigate the record of the court Marshan. At the end of the hearing it is not correct, it is not correct, “the accused is not guilty or guilty, the truth is, the full procedure is accepted and the reports of the accused in the judgment of the military court, and the evidence provided by the witnesses, cross -examination notes and the accused.

Judge Hasan Azar Rizvi, relatives or friends of the accused are allowed to appear before the military court? KH said the law allows. Haris said, but in practice it does not happen. Judge Rizvi later asked if there was any experience in investigating the chief of the military courts. Judge Mandokail sessions noted that the judges, the murder test, not only the law degree, but also the 20 years of experience.

Qu Haris replied that the chief officer does not need to have the experience of trial, because he decides the matter based on facts, placed before him, not on law. He submitted that military courts are not routine, but that the cases are set up when the military law is brought under military law.

Judge Mandokail said that people have been very trained nowadays, and two people comment on the verdict of eight judges, and declare their verdict illegal and wrong. Judge Musarat Hilali said; “Although we are not involved with any company or political party, some people try to mark them to a company or party.” “We face a uninterrupted society,” he added.

During the proceedings, Justice Mandokail raised questions, Justice Hilali stated in a lighter note: “Pensioner Judge Mandokai seems to be looking for military cases.”

The bench questioned when the certified copy of the order/judgment was not given to the accused or his consultant, and then how he could better defend himself before the military courts. KH Haris replied that the case was an archive. Although the registration of the case is not given to the accused, he or her advice is allowed to investigate them.

KH Haris says that although there is no arrangement to provide advice on the law, especially the state spending, but in the practice of the law, a lawyer will be given to him if a public accuser is unable to engage in advice. He explained how the first six cases were transferred from the magistrate to military courts.

After the tea breakdown, K Haris, in the sealed envelopes, the file of a case, the behavior of the military courts, to the bench members. However, without examining the judges returned to suggestion that the envelopes could not be seen at this point, because the case is being filed before them in the future.

The consultant of the Ministry of Defense argued that military courts were independent and biased. Judge Mandokail said that under Article 175 of the Supreme Court of the Constitution, Judge Mandokail said that it would be independent if it was separate from the administrator. He said more; “Not only is justice, but to do it.”

All the Supreme Court’s rulings say that Article 175 does not apply to military courts, and if the 175th Article Strikdo Sensu is complied with, there will be no investigation of military personnel under military law, and military courts cannot function.

Judge Muhammad Ali Majar noted that most of the rules in military law were taken from the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) and the Kanoon-e-Shahdad. He questioned whether the rule of transparency is actually fitting in military court trials or whether it is only in military law and military rules. Khawaja Haris replied that before conducting an inquiry, the chief officer was sworn in. The state -of -the -art witnesses are issued to the accused advisor in advance, and no inquiries have been made on the back of the accused. Later, the bench adjourned the hearing of the case until Thursday (today).