The Supreme Court’s seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, resumed hearings on an intra-court appeal challenging the trial of civilians in military courts. The case has attracted considerable attention as it examines the legality and fairness of such trials.
The bench includes Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan. Khawaja Haris, counsel for the defense ministry, is presenting arguments supporting the jurisdiction of military courts.
Key Arguments Khawaja Haris defended the Army Act and its regulations, asserting they provide a comprehensive framework for fair trials. However, Justice Jamal Mandokhel questioned Haris’ position on prior military trial decisions, pointing out differing opinions from Justices Munib, Ayesha Malik, and Afridi.
Justice Ayesha Malik had previously criticized Section 2(1)(d)(1) of the Army Act, deeming it incompatible with fair trial principles. Justice Afridi refrained from commenting on legal sections but emphasized adherence to decisions from larger benches. Haris argued that the majority in the Supreme Court’s 21st Amendment case had upheld military court trials, citing the FB Ali and Liaquat Hussain cases as precedents. He noted that no judge in the 21st Amendment case had called for judicial review of the FB Ali decision.
Justices Jamal Mandokhel and Muhammad Ali Mazhar pressed Haris for clarification on the extent of judicial review in these matters.
Implications The case examines the balance between national security and the protection of fundamental rights, with potential consequences for civilian trials in military courts. The Supreme Court’s ruling will likely set a precedent for interpreting the Army Act in alignment with constitutional principles.
The hearing is ongoing, with both sides presenting their arguments.
