Vandalism has now become trend: Justice Rizvi

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has adjourned until today (Wednesday) hearing into intra court appeals (ICAs) against its judgement declaring trial of civilians in military courts as unconstitutional.

A seven-member Constitutional Bench headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan heard the federal government and Ministry of Defence’s ICAs. Other members of the bench were Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarat Hilali, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.

Salman Akram Raja, counsel for one aof the persons convicted by the military courts, while resuming his arguments, submitted that the main judgement in the case held that courts could not be established outside Article 175(3) of the Constitution

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi remarked that footage of the May 9 incidents was also aired on TV channels. He stated that the Corps Commander’s House was broken into and vandalised. He further added that nowadays, setting fires, besieging buildings and causing destruction have become a trend. During the May 9 incidents, intruders entered a house and smashed TV screens with sticks. Similar incidents occurred in Bangladesh, and looting took place in Syria.

“Acts of arson and destruction have now become a trend,” Justice Rizvi remarked.

Justice Mandokhail observed that it was a crime to enter the house of an ordinary citizen.

Salman Akram Raja contended that Clause 3 of Article 175 should also be applied to army officers.

At this, Justice Afghan observed that all the laws enacted during martial laws era were reviewed by the 18th Constitutional Amendment, asking the counsel as to why he wanted to do the job of parliament through court.

Justice Afghan said that India had amended its laws through parliament. “If any military officer approaches the court, then this question will be reviewed,” he remarked, asking the counsel not to go out of jurisdiction of hearing the matter.

Justice Rizvi asked Salman Akram Raja if there were attacks on corps commanders houses elsewhere in the world. The counsel replied that he would also give the court an example in this regard.

Similarly, Justice Mazhar asked Raja as to whether the legal concerns raised in previous court’s ruling had been addressed through legislation.

Justice Mnadokhail observed that discussion being held in the court should be held in parliament. Salman Akram Raja contended that judicial authority should be exercised during the process of awarding sentences. Justice Mandokhail observed that the citation given by the counsel was pronounced by the Balochistan High Court (BHC).

Raja submitted that he had gone through the whole history of Constitution of Pakistan, adding that during the martial law eras, the Balochistan High Court had always pronounced judgements for the protection of ordinary citizens. He cited the judgement, delivered by Justice Waqar Seth (late) of the Peshawar High Court, which was even mentioned at the International Court of Justice but was later suspended by the Supreme Court.

Raja submitted that no court could be established beyond Article 175(3) of the Constitution. Justice Mandokhail asked as to whether the military court can review its own jurisdiction of hearing cases, and whether there is any verdict in field in this regard. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan asked the additional attorney general (AAG) as to whether any accused has challenged the military courts during the trial. The AAG replied that he would inform the court. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for today (Wednesday) wherein Salman Akram Raja would continue his arguments.