Latest news with #FBAli
Express Tribune
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
'How ATC is different from military court'
Constitutional Bench member Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked on Tuesday that it was not necessary for the court to rely solely on the arguments of any party; rather, the court could exercise its powers to deliver "complete justice." Sitting on a seven-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Mandokhail questioned why an anti-terrorism court was handling the trial in the case of the attack on Parliament, while a military court was tasked with the trial for the attack on military installations. The court was hearing an intra-court appeal against a previous verdict by the apex court that barred military courts from trying civilians. During the hearing, the over-50-year-old FB Ali case was also referenced. FB Ali, a retired brigadier, was tried and convicted by a military court in 1975 for attempting to overthrow then-Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. His appeal was dismissed by a five-member Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice Hamoodur Rahman. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, sitting on the bench, observed that the FB Ali case was decided under the 1962 Constitution, meaning it could not be viewed through the lens of the 1973 Constitution. Defence Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris noted that in the FB Ali case, it was stated that military trials were justified. Justice Mandokhail responded, pointing out that it was argued in the FB Ali case that Article 6(3)A of the 1962 Constitution had been discussed, though Haris replied that it had not been discussed in that case. Justice Mandokhail then asked the lawyer to review the case again. Haris, reacting to the remarks, stated that he had come only to assist the court. Justice Mandokhail apologized if his words had offended Haris, who acknowledged that it was commendable the court was carefully considering the case. Justice Mandokhail emphasized the significance of the case, stating, "The most respected institution for us is Parliament. If there is an attack on Parliament, the trial is held in the anti-terrorism court, but if the attack is on a military installation, why is the trial held in a military court? Under what principle is this distinction made?" The hearing was adjourned until Wednesday morning, with Khawaja Haris set to resume his arguments.
Express Tribune
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
'Parliament ignored military trial issue'
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, a member of a Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court, has observed that in its verdict in the FB Ali case, the apex court had stated that Parliament could review the matter in two years but Parliament never did that. A seven-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan on Monday resumed hearing the intra-court appeals filed by the government against an order of a five-member SC bench that in October 2023 declared the military trial of 105 May 9 rioters null and void. Hamid Khan continued his arguments, contending that military courts could not conduct trials of so many civilians. He also argued that a military court could not be formed without a constitutional amendment. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired where an appeal could be filed against military court decisions following the 26th Constitutional Amendment passed in October last year. Hamid Khan replied that a review petition could be filed in a high court, though its jurisdiction is limited. "In the FB Ali case decision, it was stated that Parliament could review the matter within two years; however, Parliament has done nothing about it so far," Justice Mazhar noted. In the FB Ali case, a 5-member bench of the SC declared trials of civilians under Section 2(1)(d) of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 to be legal. The Supreme Court held that the only nexus that needed to be established for "civilians or persons who have never been, in any way, connected with the Army" to be subject to the Pakistan Army Act was that "they should be persons who are accused of seducing or attempting to seduce any person subject to the Army Act from his duty or allegiance to the Government." During the argument, Justice Jamal Mandokhail noted that the question was as to what would happen if civilians commit crimes mentioned under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. "Can the jurisdiction for crimes under the Army Act be extended to civilians or not?" Justice Mandokhail also asked whether the judiciary would issue a declaration to separate itself from the executive, or if Parliament would do so. Hamid Khan responded that the words of the Constitution are clear and there is no need for a declaration from Parliament. Later, the Defence Ministry's lawyer, Khawaja Haris, appeared on the rostrum. Justice Aminuddin Khan asked as to how much time he would need in responding to the argument presented against military courts. In response to a question of Justice Masarat Hilali, he said it might indeed take a week to submit his replies. The hearing was later adjourned till today.
Express Tribune
05-02-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Misuse doesn't warrant law annulment: judge
ISLAMABAD: Justice Aminuddin Khan has noted that the misuse of a law does not justify its annulment. "The blasphemy law was also being misused. In order to stop this manipulation, later it was decided that investigation of such a case be conducted by an officer of the rank of superintendent police," said the judge while heading a seven-member Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The bench was hearing of the intra-court appeals filed against a Supreme Court verdict that annulled the trial of May 9 rioters in military courts in October 2023. A five-member SC bench had also revoked some sections of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 in its order. Arguing against the appeals, famous lawyer and PTI leader Salman Akram Raja stated that the apex court ruling in the FB Ali case was in line with the 1962 Constitution. In the FB Ali case, a five-member SC bench had allowed the trial of a civilian in a military court. Justice Jamal Mandokhail inquired about the powers of military courts under the Army Act, 1952 asking whether a person who is not part of the military could be tried in a military court solely on the basis of his crime. Raja responded that in the FB Ali case, it was stated that the trial of civilians in military courts is only permissible if fundamental rights are ensured. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked how FB Ali, who was himself a civilian, was court-martialed. Salman Akram Raja replied that the court had ruled that ensuring fundamental rights was necessary and that there was no violation of fundamental rights in the trial. He said the FB Ali case discussed Article 2(d)(1) of the Army Act, 1952 and affirmed that the act introduced through a presidential ordinance was valid, while also stating that it could be reviewed under fundamental rights. Justice Mandokhail asked about the definition of "nexus" in the FB Ali case. Salman Akram Raja replied that it referred to inciting the armed forces. He argued that the FB Ali case had been interpreted in a way that gave the impression of allowing the establishment of separate courts. Justice Aminuddin Khan noted that Salman Akram Raja was arguing against the main decision. In response, Raja mentioned that Justice Ayesha Malik's ruling was also relevant. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar then questioned why sections of the Army Act, 1952 had been declared void. Raja said appeals are filed against judgments, not reasons, and that courts can modify reasons while maintaining the operative part of the ruling, which happens regularly. Justice Mandokhail recalled that in 1968, an ordinance granted judicial powers to a tehsildar in Balochistan, but when it was challenged in the Supreme Court in the Azizullah Memon case, the court struck it down. He added that the practice continued for 14 years even after the 1973 Constitution. Raja argued that the law changed in 1987 with the introduction of Clause 3 of Article 175. He asserted that if the court upheld Justice Ayesha Malik's ruling on Article 10-A, it would be a victory for his argument. Likewise, he said that even if the court ruled that a court could not be established outside Clause 3 of Article 175, it would still support his stance. The court later adjourned the hearing till next Monday.
