In the Senate session, a resolution was passed in favor of conducting a trial in military courts after the arrest of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan on May 9 this year.
Senator Dilawar Khan presented the resolution to conduct the trial of May 9 cases in special courts in the Senate, while Senator Raza Rabbani and Senator Mushtaq Ahmed opposed it, while the resolution was approved on a majority basis.
The resolution presented by Senator Dilawar Khan said that the trial of those accused of violence against the armed forces is an appropriate and proportionate response in accordance with the existing constitutional framework and legal system of Pakistan.
The resolution stated that within the country’s constitutional framework, the trial of those accused of anti-state sabotage and violence under the Army Act acts as a deterrent against such acts. He has made significant sacrifices for the country.
Senator Delaware said that the Supreme Court’s decision has expressed insecurity and the families of the martyrs are concerned that the absence of trials in military courts is likely to embolden those responsible for acts of terrorism.
It was further informed that the judgment of the Supreme Court has invalidated the sacrifices of the armed forces, civilians and law enforcement agencies in the war against terrorism.
The resolution said that military courts have played an important role in combating terrorism by ensuring that those responsible for terrorist acts are brought to justice.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision, it was said that this decision provides flexibility to try terrorists, anti-state elements, foreign agents and spies in ordinary courts while abandoning the spirit of martyrdom and the Supreme Court has upheld the existing procedure. Not taken into account.
The resolution said that sentences handed down by military courts are not arbitrary and are handed down after due process and formalities, with the presence of an appeal process against the orders of military courts to the Chief of Army Staff and the President. It also includes the opportunity to appeal and the power to file writ petitions in the courts.
With reference to the decisions of military courts, it was said that appeals against these decisions could also reach the Supreme Court but it was ignored, the provisions of the Army Act and the basic procedure ensure that Article 10 of the Constitution- Not to violate the right to a fair trial under A.
The resolution said that civilian cases should be tried in special courts, the Supreme Court should review its decision regarding special courts.
It should be noted that the 5-member larger bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Mazahir Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik, approved the petitions filed against the trial of civilians in military courts on October 23. Military courts were declared null and void.
A larger bench of the Supreme Court, in a short six-page judgment, held that sub-clauses one and two of Section D2 of the Army Act are declared invalid.
The judgment said that Section 59(4) of the Army Act is also declared null and void.
The Supreme Court’s 1-4 majority decision said that all 103 people in military custody will not be tried in military courts.
The Supreme Court had said that all the accused in the May 9 and 10 incidents would be tried in the respective criminal courts and any trial of civilians in the military courts would have no legal status.
It should be noted that the decision of the Supreme Court was delivered by a majority of 1-4, Justice Yahya Afridi disagreed with the majority decision. Will be.
#Senate #passed #resolution #Supreme #Courts #decision #amendments #Army #Act
2024-09-13 18:09:44
Table of Contents
- 1 Here is a PAA (People Also Ask) related question for the title **”The Role of Military Courts in Combating Terrorism: A Constitutional and Legal Perspective”**:
- 2 What are the implications of the Senate’s resolution for trial in military courts on the justice system in Pakistan following Imran Khan’s arrest?
The Role of Military Courts in Combating Terrorism: A Constitutional and Legal Perspective
In a recent Senate session, a resolution was passed in favor of conducting trials in military courts after the arrest of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan on May 9 this year. The resolution, presented by Senator Dilawar Khan, aimed to conduct the trial of May 9 cases in special courts. While Senator Raza Rabbani and Senator Mushtaq Ahmed opposed the resolution, it was approved on a majority basis. This development raises important questions about the role of military courts in combating terrorism and their relationship with the existing constitutional framework and legal system of Pakistan.
The Constitutional Framework
In Pakistan, military courts have played a significant role in combating terrorism by ensuring that those responsible for terrorist acts are brought to justice. According to the resolution, the trial of those accused of violence against the armed forces is an appropriate and proportionate response in accordance with the existing constitutional framework and legal system of Pakistan. The Army Act, which governs military courts, provides for the trial of those accused of anti-state sabotage and violence, acting as a deterrent against such acts.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
However, the Supreme Court’s decision to declare military courts null and void has raised concerns about the trial of civilians in military courts. The 5-member larger bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan, held that sub-clauses one and two of Section D2 of the Army Act are declared invalid, and Section 59(4) of the Army Act is also declared null and void. This decision has been criticized for providing flexibility to try terrorists, anti-state elements, foreign agents, and spies in ordinary courts while abandoning the spirit of martyrdom.
The Role of Military Courts in Combating Terrorism
Military courts have played a crucial role in combating terrorism by ensuring that those responsible for terrorist acts are brought to justice. The resolution stated that military courts have made significant sacrifices for the country in the war against terrorism. The sentences handed down by military courts are not arbitrary and are handed down after due process and formalities, with the presence of an appeal process against the orders of military courts to the Chief of Army Staff and the President.
Comparative Analysis
In other countries, military courts have similar roles and functions. In the United Kingdom, the Court Martial has global jurisdiction over all Service personnel and civilians subject to Service discipline [[1]]. In Israel, military courts are used to try Palestinians, with trials required to be completed within eighteen months [[2]]. In the United States, military judges instruct court-martial panels on the law and apply the Military Rules of Evidence, patterned closely after the Federal Rules of Evidence [[3]].
Conclusion
the role of military courts in combating terrorism is crucial, and their relationship with the existing constitutional framework and legal system of Pakistan is critical. While the Supreme Court’s decision raises concerns about the trial of civilians in military courts, it is essential to recognize the importance of military courts in ensuring that those responsible for terrorist acts are brought to justice. The resolution presented in the Senate session highlights the need for special courts to try civilians, and the Supreme Court should review its decision regarding special courts. Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that those responsible for terrorist acts are brought to justice, while upholding the principles of fair trial and due process.
References:
<a href="https://www.addameer.org/israelimilitaryjudicialsystem/militarycourts”>[2]
What are the implications of the Senate’s resolution for trial in military courts on the justice system in Pakistan following Imran Khan’s arrest?
Senate Passes Resolution for Trial in Military Courts after Imran Khan’s Arrest
In a recent development, the Senate has passed a resolution in favor of conducting trials in military courts after the arrest of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan on May 9, 2024. The resolution, presented by Senator Dilawar Khan, aims to ensure that those accused of violence against the armed forces are brought to justice through a fair and proportionate process.
Senate Session Turns into Heated Debate
The Senate session, which witnessed squabbling between the treasury and opposition benches, saw intense debate over the resolution [[1]]. While Senator Raza Rabbani and Senator Mushtaq Ahmed opposed the resolution, it was approved on a majority basis.
Resolution Calls for Trial in Military Courts
The resolution stated that the trial of those accused of anti-state sabotage and violence under the Army Act is an appropriate response in accordance with the existing constitutional framework and legal system of Pakistan. It emphasized that military courts have played a crucial role in combating terrorism and ensuring that those responsible for terrorist acts are brought to justice [[2]].
Concerns over Supreme Court’s Decision
Senator Dilawar Khan expressed concerns over the Supreme Court’s decision, which has invalidated the sacrifices of the armed forces, civilians, and law enforcement agencies in the war against terrorism. He argued that the absence of trials in military courts would embolden those responsible for acts of terrorism [[3]].
Military Courts: A Deterrent against Terrorism
The resolution highlighted the importance of military courts in deterring anti-state elements, foreign agents, and spies. It emphasized that sentences handed down by military courts are not arbitrary and are subject to an appeal process, ensuring that the right to a fair trial is upheld.
Supreme Court’s Decision Challenged
The Supreme Court’s decision, which declared military courts null and void, was challenged by the resolution. The court’s 1-4 majority decision stated that all 103 people in military custody would not be tried in military courts, and that the accused would instead be tried in criminal courts.
Review of Supreme Court’s Decision Demanded
The resolution called for the Supreme Court to review its decision regarding special courts, emphasizing that civilian cases should be tried in special courts. It argued that the current procedure for trying civilians in military courts should be revisited to ensure justice is served.
Conclusion
The passage of the resolution in the Senate marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the use of military courts in Pakistan. As the country grapples with the challenges of combating terrorism, the resolution highlights the need for a fair and effective justice system that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders. With the Supreme Court’s decision still pending review, the fate of military courts in Pakistan remains uncertain.
