CT Newsroom
The Supreme Court’s (SC) constitutional bench raised questions over civilian trials in the military courts and its legitimacy in light of Article 8 of the constitution of Pakistan.
As per details, on Thursday, the Supreme Court’s seven-member bench hear the appeal against the military trial of civilians in the incident of May 9 attacks on army installations.
Justice Aminuddin Khan heads the bench. This constitutional bench resumed the hearing of several Intra-Court Appeals (ICAs) against Oct 23, 2023. The seven out of five-judge ordered to nullify the trial of civilians by the military courts. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan were also on the bench.
Justice Mandokhail expressed his curiosity about, “how an individual, not subject to the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) 1952, could be deprived of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution if tried under the army’s disciplinary structure”. Justice Mandokhail mentioned that the army discipline would be badly affected if ordinary civilians were brought into its domain.
Justice Mandokhail also mentioned that army discipline would apply to military men just like the agriculture department’s rules would apply to someone working in the respective department. He raised questions about how it is possible to apply the Army Act to someone who was not the part of army, if it happened it would be a clear violation of Article 8 to bring an unrelated person under the military discipline.
Justice Mandokhail asks, “how Army act can be applied to someone not part of military”.
Justice Mandokhail further clarified that “a civilian who kills a soldier will always be tried in the ordinary court of law; besides, attacking military installations was also a crime to be tried under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA)”.
Defence Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris argued that the Oct 23, 2023, judgment in the military trials of the civilians consists of two parts, and the verdict falls under Pakistan Army Act (PAA) section 2(1) d(i) and 2(1) (d)(ii) and Section 59(4) were ultra vires of the Constitution and therefore of no legal effect.
Justice Mandokhail remarks that the entire case revolved around Article 8. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar seeks whether on which justification the five-judge bench had declared the conflict between provisions of the PAA and Article 8.
Justice Mandokhai and Justice Hilali raised different questions, “ how a person who was not in the armed forces could come under its discipline, whether lawyers were allowed in the military court trial, and whether a complete record was also provided to the accused in the military court?”
The counsel informed that the accused in the military court were provided with a lawyer as well as all relevant materials.
Justice Hilali also sought the details of the rules under which the trial of civilians is being conducted in the military courts, as well as details of FIRs registered against those involved in the May 9 violence.
The constitutional bench will resume the hearing Today.
 constitutional bench raised questions over civilian trials in the military courts and its legitimacy in light of Article 8 of the constitution of Pakistan.){kind=link}