Islamabad: The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court has said that this is a constitutional bench, not a high court, that the scope of hearing will be limited. Is there any forum that is not formed under 175 and can try a civilian.
A case was heard in the Supreme Court under the leadership of Justice Aminuddin against the military trial of civilians in military courts. Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris gave the arguments of the reply.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, while talking to the lawyer, said that the reply is short. Assist on the points that could not be covered earlier.
Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris took the position that the opposing lawyers did not give arguments on the decision. And there are basically 4 points that have been raised by the opposing lawyers.
Justice Musarrat Hilal remarked that the courts should be formed under Article 175. And has this court also been formed under Article 175? Is there any forum that is not formed under Article 175 and can try a civilian?
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, while talking to the lawyer, said that you should give arguments on the decision.
Khawaja Haris said that I will answer all the points. And now I will complete the arguments on Article 161. There are also written answers on all the points.
Justice Aminuddin said that the lawyers of the other side said that the scope of intra-court appeal is limited. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that this is a constitutional bench, not a high court, so the scope of hearing will be limited.
The lawyer of the Ministry of Defense took the position that the constitutional bench can also send the case back in the appeal.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that even if we agree with the central decision, we can give our opinion separately. Khawaja Haris said that there is no question of fundamental rights under Clause 3 of Article 6 in the FB Ali case.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that fundamental rights have been exempted in Clause 3 of Article 6.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that it does not come under Clause 3 of Article 6. If it had, fundamental rights would have been provided. And if fundamental rights were affected, it would have come under Clause 1 of Article 6.
