Pakistan’s Supreme Court rules to allow military trials for suspects in

A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk and Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan announced the verdict. The Supreme Court has become a constitutional convention, in which just five votes often turns the Constitution inside out. The justification for lifetime appointment is to insulate the courts from transient political pressures.

Kamran Murtaza and Asma Jehangir had earlier this year petitioned against the establishment of military courts on behalf of the SCBA.

Pakistan’s Supreme Court has upheld a government decision to form military courts to try “hardcore terrorists”. “And we know best how to rid ourselves of terrorists”.

Six judges of 17 member bench gave verdict against the military courts.

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 establishment of the military courts was challenged in the pleas against the 21st Constitutional amendment by the Supreme Court Bar Association, the Lahore High Court Bar Association and other lawyers’ bodies, auguring that the military courts were an expression of no-confidence on prevailing judiciary.

Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday rejected all petitions against the 18th and 21st constitutional amendments, Samaa reported.

The judgement on the 21st Amendment as well as the 18th Amendment will be the last major verdict by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk as he will attain superannuation on August 16.

In a 25-page additional note written in Urdu, Justice Jawad S. Khawaja said he agrees with Justice Qazi Faiz Esa that it is essential to strike down the 21st amendment.

It also argues that the 21st Amendment does not impinge upon the independence of judiciary and the inclusion of certain laws in the First Schedule does not negate it. The Objectives Resolution, which was passed by the first constituent assembly of the country and serves as a guide to the nature and structure of any constitution to be formed in the country, does not constitute a fundamental norm of law, the government maintained in its reply filed in the court.

Later the Parliament brought the 19th Amendment by accepting nearly all the proposals and incorporating in the Constitution as suggested by the Supreme Court.