The Supreme Court was moved on Monday against the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi bench verdict that has dismissed appeals against death sentences awarded to five persons allegedly involved in terrorist attack on an army camp in Gujrat in 2012. Dismissing the plea of Sajida Parveen, mother of Ehsan Azeem, on technical grounds on December 24, 2014, a single-member bench of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi declared the matter in hand was not maintainable.
Filing the civil petition under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution before the apex court through her counsel Laiq Khan Swati for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court verdict the petitioner made the Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary of Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi, Judge Advocate General of GHQ, Rawalpindi, and Superintendent of Jail, Multan, respondents.
Mentioning the facts in the petition, the petitioner alleged that her two sons Ehsan Azeem and Nauman Azeem were abducted by intelligence/security agencies on July 25, 2013, from Wah Cantt.
"The family of the petitioner along with relatives kept on running from pillar to post but could not locate her sons/abductees," the petitioner claimed.
She informed the court through the plea that in July 2014 a meeting was arranged with her son Ehsan Azeem at Kotlakpat Jail Lahore only for 5 minutes saying soon after the meeting her son was shifted to Multan jail.
The petitioner alleged that her sons were not provided inquiry report, charge-sheet, copy of summary of evidence and opportunity to summon witnesses in defence as well as counsel services in the matter, adding that the mala fide exercise through Coram non Judice resulted into death punishment to her son Ehsan Azeem along with Asif Idress, Aamir Yousaf, Kamran Aslam, Umer Naseem and Mohsin Shahzad without jurisdiction at some unknown place.
The petitioner submitted: "Ehsan Azeem and 5 others - the citizens of Islamic Republic of Pakistan were kept in secret detention during investigation, trial stage and even at so-called appellate stage - whereas the Army Act of 1952 which was basically codified by British for their colonial designs, does not contain any provision of secret trial."
She further informed the court that with her husband she requested the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) on September 19, 2014, to direct the concerned department to provide record of the adjudication, but all in vain.
Challenging the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi bench verdict in the matter the petitioner submitted that Article 10-A provides due process as one of the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution and sought the apex court attention to draw a distinction between the procedural due process and substantial due process of law.
The petitioner prayed the court to grant leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi single bench verdict and military courts decision in the matter in the interest of justice.
Comments
Comments are closed.