The Supreme Court has issued a written order for the first hearing of the case against the trial of civilians in military courts, which includes the notes of the nominated Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
In the written order of the first hearing of the application on June 22, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood wrote in his note that ‘I fully agree with the note of Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, I was not consulted before the formation of the bench, it is surprising.
A day before, one of the petitioners, Aitzaz Ahsan, met the Chief Justice of Pakistan in the chamber and the hearing of the same petitioner’s petition was scheduled for the next day.
It is written in the note that I was not even asked for my availability before the formation of the bench, the petitioner or the petitioner of a case pending for many years will also get permission to meet the Chief Justice in the chamber and fix the case?
I was waiting The Supreme Court will decide the case against the Practice and Procedure Act soon, a three-member committee has to decide the cases under Article 184 clause three under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act.
Justice Sardar Tariq Masood wrote in the note that I am a member of the three-member committee under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act.
The Practice and Procedure Act was suspended. He wrote that I heard the case against 436 persons included in the Panama list because those petitions have been declared admissible by a five-member larger bench.
I adjourned that case for a month because I expected the practice and case to be decided. In the note, it is written that the four petitioners who approached the Supreme Court against the military courts are apparently neither in custody nor in the army. Facing trial in the courts, these four petitioners did not attack GHQ, PAF and sensitive places in the May 9 incidents.
approached the Supreme Court directly. The note states that a separate decision should be taken on the petition after hearing each individual person.
I am surprised that the nine-judge bench was constituted on the assumption that the Practice and Procedure Act should be struck down, if the Act is not struck down, the appeal of the aggrieved party would be heard by a larger bench under section five of the Practice and Procedure Act. Ga., to hear an appeal against the decision of this case
