SC accepts plea challenging military court ruling
Rejects registrar office’s objections, directs to fix the petition next week
Supreme Court. PHOTO: EXPRESS/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The top court has admitted a constitutional petition for preliminary hearing against the military court’s verdict to award death sentence to an alleged militant.
Supreme Court’s senior judge Justice Mian Saqib Nisar while rejecting the registrar office’s objections on Wednesday directed to fix the constitutional petition next week.
Saleh Bibi through her counsel Asma Jahangir filed a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution against the award of death sentence to her husband by the military court.
Later on, the apex court’s registrar office refused to entertain the plea by raising objections. However, Asma Jahangir challenged the objections. After hearing her arguments in his chamber, Justice Saqib admitted the petition for preliminary hearing before the bench.
The petition states that Qari Zahir Gul is confined in Timargrah Jail and recently convicted by the military court, adding that since the information has been obtained from a newspaper, the applicant is not fully aware of the details of the allegations against her husband and is also unaware of the judgment of military court and reasons for conviction and sentence.
The applicant also says that the quality of evidence is also not known to her, therefore, in the present circumstances, she can give only details which she knows.
According to petitioner, her husband was picked up by the security forces on April 27, 2011 from an IDP camp and was taken to an unknown place, adding that inhabitants of camp were of the view that since her husband had opposed the military authorities to leave the camp and go to their native village because the area was not peaceful for living.
The petition has contended that majority decision in the 21st Constitutional Amendment case has laid down that the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to review the military court’s orders on the ground of coram non judice, being without jurisdiction and suffering from mala fides.
It is also submitted that the present military court’s order is coram non judice, being without jurisdiction and suffering from mala fides because neither the convict was allowed to hire counsel nor was given any document.
The petition says that the military courts were not given unfettered powers through 21st Constitutional Amendment to adopt its own procedure and deny the accused any rights, adding that the federal government did not apply its judicious mind in transferring the case of her husband to the military court.
The petitioner requested the apex court to stay on the execution of the convict till final judgment of case. Similarly, it is pleaded the court to direct all respondents to produce the proceedings a judgment of military court for perusal and examination of the legality of the impugned judgment.
It is to be noted that the Supreme Court, while hearing a case of similar nature, has already sought legal assistance from the counsel for convicted person over the maintainability of an appeal against the military court’s verdict.
The three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal, heard the appeal against the military court’s verdict, wherein death sentence by the military court has been awarded to one militant namely Sabir Shah.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 1st, 2015.
The top court has admitted a constitutional petition for preliminary hearing against the military court’s verdict to award death sentence to an alleged militant.
Supreme Court’s senior judge Justice Mian Saqib Nisar while rejecting the registrar office’s objections on Wednesday directed to fix the constitutional petition next week.
Saleh Bibi through her counsel Asma Jahangir filed a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution against the award of death sentence to her husband by the military court.
Later on, the apex court’s registrar office refused to entertain the plea by raising objections. However, Asma Jahangir challenged the objections. After hearing her arguments in his chamber, Justice Saqib admitted the petition for preliminary hearing before the bench.
The petition states that Qari Zahir Gul is confined in Timargrah Jail and recently convicted by the military court, adding that since the information has been obtained from a newspaper, the applicant is not fully aware of the details of the allegations against her husband and is also unaware of the judgment of military court and reasons for conviction and sentence.
The applicant also says that the quality of evidence is also not known to her, therefore, in the present circumstances, she can give only details which she knows.
According to petitioner, her husband was picked up by the security forces on April 27, 2011 from an IDP camp and was taken to an unknown place, adding that inhabitants of camp were of the view that since her husband had opposed the military authorities to leave the camp and go to their native village because the area was not peaceful for living.
The petition has contended that majority decision in the 21st Constitutional Amendment case has laid down that the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to review the military court’s orders on the ground of coram non judice, being without jurisdiction and suffering from mala fides.
It is also submitted that the present military court’s order is coram non judice, being without jurisdiction and suffering from mala fides because neither the convict was allowed to hire counsel nor was given any document.
The petition says that the military courts were not given unfettered powers through 21st Constitutional Amendment to adopt its own procedure and deny the accused any rights, adding that the federal government did not apply its judicious mind in transferring the case of her husband to the military court.
The petitioner requested the apex court to stay on the execution of the convict till final judgment of case. Similarly, it is pleaded the court to direct all respondents to produce the proceedings a judgment of military court for perusal and examination of the legality of the impugned judgment.
It is to be noted that the Supreme Court, while hearing a case of similar nature, has already sought legal assistance from the counsel for convicted person over the maintainability of an appeal against the military court’s verdict.
The three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal, heard the appeal against the military court’s verdict, wherein death sentence by the military court has been awarded to one militant namely Sabir Shah.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 1st, 2015.