Islamabad: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has resumed hearing an intra-court appeal challenging the trial of civilians in military courts. During the proceedings, Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that under the Army Act, all criminal offenses apply solely to military personnel.
The case, which was heard by a seven-member constitutional bench led by Justice Ameenuddin Khan, focused on the legality of transferring civilian cases to military courts. Justice Khan suggested to lawyer Khawaja Haris that he should conclude his arguments by the following day, while emphasizing the need to keep the discussion concise regarding the transfer of cases to military courts and the reasons for such transfers.
Khawaja Haris, representing the Ministry of Defence, pointed out that the Supreme Court had already declared Section 4(59) of the Army Act unconstitutional. In response, Justice Mandokhail emphasized that the Army Act specifically addresses crimes committed by military officers, adding that such crimes could only be tried within the military jurisdiction.
Haris countered that certain sections of the Official Secrets Act, such as Section 2D(1) and 2D(2), should also be considered in the context of the Army Act, and that military courts have jurisdiction under Section 31D for trial of civilians. However, Justice Mandokhail clarified that Section 31D pertains to actions involving military personnel, particularly inciting them to neglect their duties.
The hearing also delved into whether military courts were constitutionally sanctioned, with Justice Masarat Hilali pointing out that the Constitution recognizes various tribunals, but the core issue remained the jurisdiction and legitimacy of military trials for civilians.
Read More: US Supreme Court Weighs TikTok Sale or Ban Law Amid Free Speech Concerns
Justice Mandokhail raised questions about whether a civilian trial in a military court could be equated to a court-martial, while Justice Hilali inquired about the consequences under the Army Act for military officers who violate the Constitution.
The discussion also touched on the implications for judges involved in unconstitutional actions. Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi questioned whether the court could review recent decisions made by military courts and whether they adhered to legal procedures.
The hearing was adjourned until the following day, with the bench indicating that further deliberations would be held before making a final ruling on the matter.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.