ISLAMABAD - While reacting to the verdict announced by the Supreme Court in petitions challenging the 18th and 21st constitutional amendments, the legal fraternity gave mixed reactions here on Wednesday.

The lawyers favouring the judgment have termed it very much in the four corners of the constitution while the opponents of this decision have called it the rebirth of doctrine of necessity.

Commenting over the decision, Attorney General for Pakistan Salman Aslam Butt said: “It is a good judgment and will go a long way.

On the other hand, renowned lawyer AK Dogar said that he deemed the judges of the Supreme Court have written the verdict which is different from the law and Constitution of the country.

He continued that as judges, they had the right to interpret the law as per their own understanding but he added, “In my opinion, this verdict is not in accordance to the constitution and law of the land.”

Explaining the possible reason behind such a decision, he remarked that it might be possible they had kept in mind two things while writing the judgment. “First, they might have kept in view national expedience and second, the temporary nature of this law.” But, he emphasised that the law must prevail always.

Another prominent lawyer Ali Ahmad Kurd opined, “In my view, it is not a right verdict and the lawyer community will not appreciate it while it will also not leave a good impact on the masses.”

He was of the view that through this judgment, the Supreme Court has validated a parallel system to already existing justice system.

Senior lawyer Hashmat Habib said, “The 18the constitutional amendment is a big fraud and it is a big fraud with the people of the country in the Parliamentary history.”

Similarly, he said that the judges had already made up their mind to dismiss the constitutional petitions, challenging the 21st constitutional amendment under which the military courts were established. “It seems that the court once again in the garb of law of necessity deviated from the settle law,” Hashmat Habib said, adding that the system of military courts is wrong and he doesn’t know on what basis the court has upheld the establishment of military courts.

Former president Supreme Court Bar Association Kamran Murtaza while commenting said that he respects the opinion of six judges, opposing the establishment of military courts. He said that they have legal remedy to file a review petition in the apex court.

Another senior lawyer of the Supreme Court Raja Ibrahim Sathi said that now it is obvious that the Supreme Court has upheld the martial law as it had endorsed in Begum Nusrat Bhutto case, Zafar Ali Shah’s case and Doso’s case. “The present verdict of the apex court is a continuation of those judgments,” Sathi added. Similarly, senior lawyer of Supreme Court Muhammad Ikram Chaudhary opposed this decision by terming it a wrong verdict. He remarked that it is the rebirth of doctrine of necessity.

However, another senior lawyer of Supreme Court Azhar Siddique praised the decision, saying it is very much within the four corners of the Constitution.

Explaining the decision, he told that this verdict is in line with Article 25, 9, 10 and 10-A as the terrorists are a special class and they cannot be treated just like a common citizen.

He described that in view of Article 10, special provision has been made whereby provisions of Article 10 regarding arrest, detention and trial, the said Article does not applicable to alien enemy.

Azhar Siddique mentioned that the directions of Mahram Ali and Sheikh Liaquat Hussain cases have not been implemented in letter and spirit and special courts have failed to render justice.

He said that military courts are dealing with our military personnel and when Article 10-A is not applicable to them then how can we make hue and cry regarding implementation of Article 10-A about the fair trial of a terrorist.

Likewise, Raja Muhammad Irshad, another senior lawyer who had represented the secret agencies in the missing persons’ case in the apex court endorsed the verdict.

He said that it has been testified that criminal justice system is not solid, adding that ground realities are that terrorists and hard core criminals who could not be tried by the ordinary courts earlier, now will be brought to justice by the military courts.