Islamabad: Supreme Court Constitutional Bench Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan has said that we agree with the argument of the Defense Ministry’s lawyer that the decision to declare various provisions of the Army Act null and void is not correct.
A 7-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan held the 46th hearing on the intra-court appeal against the repeal of the court martial of civilians.
Defense Ministry’s lawyer Khawaja Haris took the stand in his reply arguments that court martial of civilians is not a matter of the army’s ego, it is for the national defense and security of Pakistan.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that considering the detail the court heard the case, it is surprising that no armed person has come before us with a request that he should also be provided with an independent judicial forum. The constitution is supreme and the parliament is also subject to the constitution.
Justice Aminuddin further adjourned the hearing till April 7 and ordered that the proceedings be adjourned for three weeks due to the unavailability of the bench judges on the principal seat. An attempt will be made to give a summary decision immediately after completing the hearing.
Khawaja Haris said that new points were raised on Article 175 and Article 245, so it will take 8 days to complete the rebuttal arguments.
According to the news agency, Khawaja Haris said that legislation is the right of Parliament and Parliament has to decide the extent of the jurisdiction of a particular law and to whom it will be applied.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that the main purpose of the Army Act is to maintain discipline in the forces. Khawaja Haris said that instead of focusing on a specific provision while ignoring the overall spirit of the Constitution, things should be examined in the broader and collective scope of the Constitution.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked the lawyer whether this means that Parliament can extend the jurisdiction of the Army Act? Khawaja Haris replied that this is not a question before the court yet. Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that the decision in question is not correct to the extent of Section 2/1-D and I agree with the lawyer on this point.
