The intervention of the army or the establishment in politics must be objected to and for a long-term solution to this problem, the establishment, politicians, civil government and the judiciary should all understand their basic responsibilities and remove the weaknesses and flaws that the army repeatedly causes interference in politics.
Is there an immediate solution to this decades-long problem? This question should also be discussed, but on the one hand, it is wrong to think that politicians are all thieves and no one is sincere with Pakistan, on the other hand, considering the army as your enemy because of the establishment's interference in politics is actually tantamount to denying its importance, as far as Pakistan's defense and internal security matters are concerned, this is an attitude that can be very dangerous for the integrity of Pakistan.
Pakistan's judiciary played a very heinous role in this historic battle between the military establishment and the civil government and politicians.
If Pakistan's judiciary was good, there would be no martial law, no political interference, and no politicians and civil governments would kill merit, no favoritism and nepotism would rule, and no bad governance would prevail.
Instead of doing anything right, Pakistan's judiciary continued to play the role of a facilitator in this civil-military conflict.
After the fall of Imran Khan's government and Tehreek-e-Insaaf's anti-military narrative, the judiciary appeared to be going against the military establishment instead of facilitating it.
According to some, there was a section of the judges who were willing to go to any extent for Khan's love, while another section was giving concessions even to those who abused the army to prove themselves anti-establishment. .
Meanwhile, the events of May 9 took place, which were not only a huge blow for Pakistan, but were no less than 9/11 for the military establishment. At that time, the way the Supreme Court gave protocol to Imran Khan and paved the way for his immediate release was also an example of its kind.
The events of May 9, which were recently mentioned by Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa as a negative reference in the Faizabad sit-in case, their sensitivity and gravity towards Pakistan and the army were ignored by the then Supreme Court. Contrary to the attitude of the Supreme Court at that time, the Government, Parliament and the Army took a tough stance on the events of May 9 and it was decided that those who were involved in the attack on military buildings, installations, monuments, etc., should be tried under the Army Act. And will be done under the Official Secrets Act.
Another point of view was that the cases of the accused involved in the May 9 incidents cannot be tried in military courts under the Army Act. This was the question that was raised before the Supreme Court at that time, but the then Supreme Court, after giving the impression that the case would be decided immediately, put the matter in abeyance.
When the current Chief Justice raised this case again before a five-member bench, in the very first hearing, the Supreme Court bench declared the military trial of the accused under the Army Act of May 9 as unconstitutional and struck down some of the provisions of the Army Act. Declared unconstitutional, according to which the case of enemies of the country like Indian spy Kulbhushan Yadav cannot be prosecuted under the Army Act.
Many people were happy with this decision and called it a great success, while on the other hand, the objection was raised that the decision was taken too hastily, the issues of national security which are related to the defense and security of Pakistan were not considered.
Justice Yahya Afridi, one of the five judges, disagreed with the decision to declare the relevant provisions of the Army Act unconstitutional. Now an appeal has been filed by the government, Ministry of Defense and others against this decision of the Supreme Court.
This matter is very serious. Many would not have objected if the decision had been made to the extent of the accused of May 9, but by declaring such a part of the Army Act as unconstitutional, foreign spies, soldiers and foreigners who attack the most sensitive installations. A case cannot be registered even against terrorists under the Army Act.
After the Army Public School tragedy, the constitution was amended to allow military trials of those involved in terrorist incidents for four years because our civil justice system had failed to punish terrorists.
Everyone knows the state of our judicial system. Fix this system so that everyone gets justice.
If the Army Act is misused, it is the responsibility of the judiciary to stop it, but to abolish the law in a hurry without listening to everyone, without thinking that it benefits the enemies of the country, foreign spies like Kulbhushan and terrorists. Will raise makes this decision controversial.
0 Comments