Islamabad: Judge of the Supreme Court Hasan Azhar Rizvi on Thursday, whether he had learned on Thursday, May 9, 2023, was more serious offenses allegedly committed by PTI supporters more serious than terrorism, increasing questions about the trace of civilians. His notes came as a seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court held by Judge Amin-Oud-Din Khan, heard intra-cousin against the court with civilians in military courts During the management of the Ministry of Defense advisor Khawaja Haris said that the military courts were not listed in the court system according to Article 175 of the Constitution and instead were established under a separate recognized Act. In response to Judge Jamal Mandokhail noted that the courts established under Article 175 have a wide jurisdiction, while the courts stipulated under specific laws have limited powers. He also stated that the 21st change stated that military courts were established in war situations and a constitutional change was required in a court with civilians. In response to the advisor of the Ministry of Defense, he stated that no change was necessary for the courts; Rather, the amendment has expanded the Army Act to include other offenses. Rizvi justice noted that the 21st institutional change also mentioned the basic attacks of Mehran and Kamra. He asked where tests of those who attacked the general headquarters (GHQ) and Airbase Kamra. “Was two Orion aircraft worth billions of rupees were destroyed – was the 9th May crime more serious than these terrorist incidents?” he asked. Hassan’s questions of justice of the lawyer of the Ministry of Defense said that all terrorists were killed by the basic attack of Mehran. “Was there any investigation after they were killed?” Who were they? Where did they come from and how did they come? “Was Mehran’s basic attack after killing terrorists? Justice of risky justice. The case of the GHQ attack was tried in military courts and the court proceedings took place before the 21st institutional change, the council said. Judge Rizvi stated that the constitutional change was made on the basis of all attacks, so there were no problems in court proceedings. Judge Musarrat Hilali said that the Constitution was the Supreme Law and challenged the difference between the defendants of the individuals of civil and armed forces. Judge Mandokhail noted that the Civil Courts were kept for civilians killed by guardians in Karachi and Turbato. Meanwhile, lawyer Khawaja Ahmed Hussain claimed that after the army law, the fundamental rights were suspended. He pointed out that the law was adopted for the purpose of granting the Indian spy of Kulbhushan Jadhav the right to appeal at the Supreme Court, but this right is rejected by ordinary citizens. He also said that the federal government repeatedly claims that the decision of the military courts will include justification, but now it is said that there is no justification. Hussain claimed that Article 8 (3) of the Constitution was excluded by the Army Act from the provisions of fundamental rights. He noted that Article 8 (3) specifically mentions members of the armed forces, which explains that the law is intended for them and not for civilians. He claimed that if civilians were to be included, another wording would be used. Mandokhail’s justice then asked whether this article was to refer to the “armed forces” instead of “armed forces”. Hussain replied positively and stated that the mention of “members” explained that civilians could not be tried under the same provisions. After detailed arguments, the court postponed the hearing until tomorrow (Friday).
