May 9 cases don’t appear to fall under state security concerns, says Justice Rizvi

Islamabad: The Supreme Court judge Hasan Azhar Rizvi said on Wednesday that after reviewing the records, it seems that Cases on May 9 did not fall into the State Security. The notes lost the touch action on the civil proceedings during the hearing of the civil proceedings in military courts. The seven -member constitutional bench led by justice by aminuddin Khan and including the justice of Mandokhail, Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, the leadership of justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Judge Musarrat Hilali and Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan. At the beginning of the hearing, Judge Hilali asked if the investigation was before the fee. Mazhar justice replied that the investigation was first carried out, followed by a formal accusation. The Ministry of Defense advisor Khawaja added that the law clearly distinguishes between the court and the fair court. The justice of Azhara asked if the accused was provided to a state lawyer if he could not afford to which Haris had confirmed that there was a state legal representation. Mandokhail then said the accused was considered a “favorite child” of the court and questioning whether the same applies to military courts. The Ministry of Defense advisor assured that complete protection was provided under the Army Rules Act. Meanwhile, the Afghan Justice said that as the main judge of Balochistan he heard an appeal against the judgments of the military court and that the decision was not issued on empty documents that were announced only by the accused or innocent. He added that when cases were questioned in the Supreme Courts, the General Registered Office provided complete court records, including evidence and procedural data. Justice then asked whether families of civilian or media had access to a military court. In this Haris, the court announced that while the law mentions access to families and media, security concerns often reduce it. The judge also asked whether the judges of the military court had previous experience or were appointed without any. He also asked whether the lawyer had the case of a previous legal experience and whether the judge could lead the court in court. The lawyer confirmed that the judge’s advocate always sits next to military judges. Meanwhile, Judge Hilali raised concerns about the impact of such verdicts on civilians and said that society was already facing injustice. Judge Mandokhail noted that the judges of the session have been appointed for decades of legal experience, while some recent cases show that even the decisions of the benches of eight judges are questioned by two judges. He then asked whether Article 175 of the Constitution was set by military courts. Haris replied that if such a provision was set out, it would be necessary to revise the past decisions of the Military Court. He added that military courts exist in several countries and are recognized under constitutional law. Judge Mandokhail also asked why cases related to narcotics fully dominated by the army require the appointment of a judge from the chief judge of Pakistan. The lawyer claimed that the military courts were legally excluded from Article 175 in all previous court decisions. During the hearing, the Afghan Justice of the Ministry of Defense ordered to submit examples of military court decisions in the case of 9 May. Haris introduced records in sealed envelope and distributed seven copies of decisions in a military court on a bench with seven judges. Haris urged the court to explore the trial and stated that the individuals were asked before the proceedings whether they had any objections to the President, and none of them caught any concerns. However, Judge Mandokhail noted that the records should be reviewed in the appeal phase that is inappropriate for the court to assess them at this stage. Judge Aminuddin assured that the Supreme Court would not allow the court to be influenced. Meanwhile, the judge suggested that the publication of cases could reveal the behavior of the accused, which allowed the public to assess their behavior. The lawyer of the Ministry of Defense replied that such decisions are with the authorities.              Later, six judges of the constitutional bench, with the exception of Hilali Justice, returned the court records Haris.