ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has sought a concise statement from the federal and provincial governments within 15 days over the Lahore High Court Bar Association's (LHCBA) plea against the establishment of military courts.
Headed by chief justice Nasirul Mulk, a three judge bench of the apex court accepted on Wednesday LHCBA's plea for a regular hearing. However, questions of public importance were raised, for which notices were issued to the attorney general for Pakistan as well as all the advocate generals.
The hearing was adjourned until February 12.
During the hearing, Hamid Khan, counsel for LHCBA, while referring to Article 175 of the Constitution, contended before the bench that the new constitutional amendment has undermined the independence of the judiciary as well as separation of the judiciary from the executive.
The counsel also stated that Article 2A and 8 of the Constitution have also been affected through this amendment, which secured the independence of the judiciary as well as the fundamental rights of the citizens.
It will be the first time in 39 years that some laws have been amended to affect the first schedule of the Constitution, Khan stated.
When questioned on his opinion about Atrticle 239 of the Constituion by Justice Mushir Alam, Khan said that no constitutional amendment can be challenged in any court of law and also said that he would argue on this aspect as well.
COMMENTS (11)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Ali:
Dude, what is Hamid Khan other identity besides being a lawyer?
@Adnan: Dude, I don't even see IK or PTI even mentioned in article by any chance. How do you achieve to be on such level of intellect? Seems like IK and PTI have possessed you.
Arguing before the Supreme Court in connection with the petition against military courts, Counsel for the Lahore High Court Bar Association stated, among other things, that it is for the first time in 39 years that some laws have been amended to affect the first schedule of the constitution.
However, on 7th October 1958, military dictator Ayub Khan abrogated the entire constitution which was introduced on 23rd March 1956. It would be interesting to know whether any petitions were filed against the move by any Bar Association or other institutions or individuals then and if so, what was the outcome. I am not saying that if people did not protest then, they have no business objecting now, more so when the move is a small one as compared to the abrogation of the whole constitution. Just asking.
Also, even though it may be have come for the first time in 39 years, we also did not face the existential threats from militants and terrorists like we are facing now, in the last 39 years, or indeed in the whole of Pakistan's life of over 67 years.
And military courts are being set up for a specific purpose and for a limited time, to meet a desperate situation caused by the inability of the system to deliver. And no body is claiming that for this inability to deliver, the fault lies with the judiciary. On the contrary, nearly all the faults causing this unfortunate situation are beyond judiciary powers to rectify, like short strength of judges, weak investigation and prosecution by law enforcers who themselves are terribly short both on strength and on quality of personnel. Also, judges, lawyers and witnesses lack protection. And even with the best of intentions, these faults could take at least a couple of yeas to rectify, and our desperate situation does not warrant waiting that long; hence the need for military courts.
And I suppose if the National Assembly could introduce a brand new Constitution in 1973 superseding the 1956 Constitution altogether, the present should be seen to be within its rights to introduce the amendments that it has done.
And we also have to keep in mind that these are our own armed forces who will run the military courts. This is one institution in Pakistan which is functioning in an excellent manner. Manning country's borders, and dislodging and carrying out mopping up operations against terrorists, they are already over-stretched and would not have been particularly looking forward to take on this additional task. However, in the national interest, they have taken on this extra responsibility as well. As such, we should appreciate their offer and not take it as an undue interference, and usurpation of powers of others.
So, let there be goodwill, and the best of cooperation between different organs of the state and all segments of society, in order to make the National Action Plan a success, instead of each one of them jealously guarding its turf, to the detriment of the country and the nation.
Karachi
Supreme Court can neither frame Laws nor amend constitution. It cannot give supra constitutional decision.
Point is of constiutional supermacy and principles of natural justice. Contention should not be the civil-military power equation but the well being of common man. if principles of natural justice are dendied, militrary courts are going to play havoc with the human rights.
The Sharifs are the genuine perils for Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif is known for poking his nose in every institution though getting red at times. It is incumbant upon the Supreme court to establish a separate independent Constitutional Court which deals with the constitutional matters and not civili or crime cases
Rex Minor
There were days when suo moto action would be taken even for the price of lentil. Today, millions are suffering due to petrol shortage. There is oversupply globally due to which the prices came down internationally and world over consumers are happy. In Pakistan it is criminal negligence that we are having long queues and mayhem for petrol pump. However, the esteemed court is more interested to find that who is encroaching on its authority to let go off terrorists.
Once again Kaptaan's legendary hypocrisy has come to the fore.
PTI once again placing itself in the forefront of it's defense of TTP.
Decision of SC will determine whether SC is paramount or venue of law making, parliament
Lawyers do not want the sufferings of Pakistanis to be mitigated , but get huge fees from terrorists for saving their skins