THE Supreme Court has finally given the decision favouring the establishment of military courts. This decision has caused much resentment in the legal fraternity.
Most lawyers having expressed reservations about it, some of them have said the court has resurrected the `Law of Necessity` where there was no necessity.
As a lawyer and student of the constitutional law, I do not approve of this verdict. On the face of it, this is unconstitutional and extra judicial, and is tantamount to violating basic rights of citizens. Fundamental rights and civil liberties are ensured and guaranteed by the Constitution. As custodian and interpreter of the Constitution, the Court has compromised these rights.
Parliament is supreme but it does not have the power to violate and take away a citizen`s basic rights under any pretext whatsoever. Eleven judges voted in favour and six voted against it. I endorse the dissenting opinion.
As far as its decision to uphold the constitutional amendments is concerned, I fully endorse that part of the decision. As admitted by the court, it does not enjoy the powers to strike down or review the amendments passed by parliament. So far so good, but what about confirming the establishment of military courts? That part of the verdict is questionable. No compromise on the fundamental rights should have been made.
Some political analysts have welcomed the decision and rejoiced. Little do they know about its implications and the injury caused to basic rights. Military courts are not acceptable for any reason whatsoever.
They chip away at the powers of the regular civil and military courts. No extraordinary conditions persist to warrant the establishment of the military courts. The Nawaz government does not kmow that it has surrendered its powers to the military, We are inching towards martial law.
