The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the plea seeking the formation of a full court for hearing the case of civilians’ military trials and adjourned further hearing of the case till tomorrow, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.
Pronouncing the decision reserved on Tuesday, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial maintained: “Summer vacations are in progress, so full court formation is not possible until September.”
CJP Bandial further said the six-judge larger bench currently hearing the case will continue to proceed.
“The objections will be removed with the formation of the full-court bench,” Faisal Siddiqui Advocate said while presenting his arguments in the court a day earlier.
On the other hand, the lawyer for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman objected to the formation of a full-court bench. “At this time, forming a full-court bench is tantamount to prolonging the suspension of fundamental human rights,” the PTI’s lawyer said.
After apex the court's decision on the full court plea was announced on Wednesday, Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan came to the rostrum and informed the bench: “Yesterday, Faisal Siddiqui’s plea for the full court was heard. As far as this case is concerned, all assurances including those of providing facilities to all the detainees have been given so far.”
“The detainees are being given the right to a fair trial including that of meeting their families and to have a lawyer. No one’s crime in the May 9 incidents is punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty,” he added.
“Yesterday, Latif Khosa said that a person was barred by the judicial magistrate from appearing before him. He also stated that the detainees were mistreated,” he further told the court.
“None of the 102 detainees was mistreated while being produced before the judicial magistrate. The dignity and self-respect of every person is being taken care of. I assure [you] that none of the detainees have been mistreated,” the attorney general refuted the allegations of Latif Khosa.
“History is witnessing what has been happening. We will continue our work whether one likes it or not. The people will decide which law is applicable in the country. We leave it to history whether we did it right or not. We don’t care about criticism. We are answerable only to Allah,” CJP Umar Ata Bandial remarked during the hearing of the case.
“When military courts become active, civilian criminal courts become inactive,” Justice Muneeb Akhtar pointed out.
“Article 175A does not apply to military courts,” the attorney general argued before the court.
“Soldiers who do not have basic human rights are tried in military courts. Civilians have basic human rights, so how will they be tried in military courts?” Justice Muneeb Akhtar questioned.
“Article 175 states that the executive and the judiciary are separate. Courts have been defined in Article 175A, and it does not include a court martial,” the attorney general stated before the court.
“Article 175 says that the court should be in accordance with the law. How will you defend the court that is beyond the law?” Justice Yahya Afridi raised a question.
“A court martial is not Article 175A, but a court with special jurisdiction,” the attorney general told the court.
“What will be the definition of courts that try civilians? Do you think these are martial courts or military courts?” Justice Yahya Afridi questioned further.
“These are military courts martial where civilians are to be tried,” the attorney general told the court.
“According to a decision of the Supreme Court, a court established by the law will not be considered a court. The Supreme Court said in the Mahram Ali case that a court cannot be established without the supervision of the Apex Court or High Court,” CJP Umar Ata Bandial said.
“According to the Constitution, civilians have the facility of an independent judiciary, basic human rights and justice. Every civilian has the right to freedom while going to any court. How can civilians have freedom in such a court which is not established under Article 175A, but it is a court itself?” Justice Ayesha Malik remarked.
Further hearing of the case was adjourned till tomorrow. The time for the hearing of the case will be announced later.
Reporter: Amanat Gishkori