The apex court, in an 11-6 move, dissolved a slew of petitions filed against the 21st constitutional amendment wherein military courts have been set up to the trial of terrorists.
Advertisement
The judgment, stretched over 1000 pages, was authored by the Chief Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk. Judges provided seven opinions and two additional notes on the ruling.
“It’s a very disappointing verdict by the apex court“. The Supreme Court has become a constitutional convention, in which just five votes often turns the Constitution inside out.
While publicizing the judgment, the CJ said: “In view of the respective opinions recorded above, by a majority of 13 to 4 these constitution petitions are held to be maintainable”.
Pakistan’s Supreme Court has upheld a government decision to form military courts to try “hardcore terrorists”.
The 21st constitutional amendment was passed by the Parliament in January 2015 as part of the national action plan against terrorism adopted in the wake of terror attack that hit the army public school in Peshawar on December 16, 2014.
The Pakistani government said setting up the military courts was necessary because civilian judges were too intimidated to convict militants and sentence them to death.
Pleas against 18th Amendment were filed in April 2010.
Supreme Court dismissed all the 35 pleas against the establishment of military courts and against the 18 amendment.
The hearing of petitions challenging the 18th and 21st amendments was completed by the Supreme Court on June 26. The petitioners argued that the 18th Amendment has created imbalance in the system and that the Parliament has no power to change the basic structure of the constitution.
The final judgement in the 18th Amendment case is still pending with the Supreme Court for the last four years though a full-court bench headed by then Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had issued an order on October 21, 2010, suggesting that guidelines in the mode of appointment of superior court judges under Article 175-A of the constitution.
Advertisement
Meanwhile concluding his arguments, the Attorney General for Pakistan contended that the apex court has nothing to do with the Parliamentary business so constitutional amendments could not be declared null and void.
