On Tuesday, Constitutional Bench member Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said the court could give “complete justice” without relying entirely on either party’s arguments.
On a seven-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Mandokhail questioned why an anti-terrorism court was trying the Parliament attack while a military court was trying the military installations attack.
The court heard an intra-court appeal of the highest court’s ruling banning military courts from judging civilians. The over-50-year-old FB Ali case was mentioned during the hearing.
In 1975, a military court convicted retired brigadier FB Ali of trying to overthrow Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. A five-judge Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Hamoodur Rahman rejected his appeal.
On the court, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan noted that the FB Ali case was decided under the 1962 Constitution, not the 1973 Constitution.
Khawaja Haris, Defence Ministry counsel, noted that military trials were justified in the FB Ali case. Haris denied that Article 6(3)A of the 1962 Constitution was mentioned in the FB Ali case, but Justice Mandokhail noted that it was.
Justice Mandokhail asks the counsel to review the case again. Haris said that he had merely come to help the court. Justice Mandokhail apologised if his statements offended Haris, who praised the court’s comprehensive case review.
Justice Mandokhail stressed the case’s importance, “Parliament is our most revered institution. The anti-terrorism court hears attacks on Parliament, but why is a military installation trial heard in a military court? Which principle governs this distinction?”
After adjourning until Wednesday morning, Khawaja Haris will resume his arguments.
