In Islamabad, a petitioner who had contested the trial of his son in a military court after the May 9 incident has approached the Supreme Court to expedite the case’s hearing. Junaid Razzaq, represented by counsel Salman Akram Raja, submitted a request, stating that military court proceedings had already commenced and urged that the case be scheduled for the third week of October.
The petitioner contended that the initiation of military court trials for civilians was a clear violation of the Supreme Court’s order issued on August 3, 2023. He argued that an early hearing of the petition was essential to serve the interests of justice, as any hasty trial of his son would result in irreparable harm.
The petitioner had previously filed a separate application, requesting an immediate halt to the military court proceedings in his son’s case. This application stated that, contrary to commitments made before the Supreme Court and in violation of its orders, the petitioner had learned that trials of civilians before military courts had begun. The applicant had informed the military authorities about the court’s orders but without success.
The application further explained that the petitioner’s son, Arzam Junaid, had been detained by military authorities for trial in military courts. Arzam was arrested on May 15 and transferred to the custody of the commanding officer in Lahore on May 25. As over four months had passed since the transfer of custody to military authorities, the petitioner argued that the law did not allow for physical remand beyond 14 days from the arrest.
The application emphasized that Arzam and other detainees’ fundamental rights were seriously infringed upon by subjecting them to a trial under the Pakistan Army Act of 1952. This act did not provide for judicial remand or the right to apply for bail, which meant that detainees remained in custody until acquittal.
The petitioner requested the Supreme Court to direct the Punjab Inspector General to provide protection and security to the applicant and his family members. Additionally, the court was asked to instruct all authorities not to proceed against the petitioner or his family members in violation of the law.
Leave a Comment