Islamabad: In the Supreme Court hearing on the trial of civilians in military courts, Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked that military trials for civilians were intended for offenders involved in cases like the APS tragedy. She asked whether all civilians could be treated the same way.
The constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin, heard the intra-court appeal against the decision to try civilians in military courts. During the proceedings, Khawaja Haris, the lawyer representing the Ministry of Defense, presented his arguments.
Judges Question Limits of Military Trials
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar emphasized that Article 233 of the Constitution safeguards fundamental rights. Justice Jamal Mandokhail added that while rules may be suspended during emergencies, they are not abolished, and rights cannot be entirely suspended, even under Article 5.
Khawaja Haris argued that a past case had established that civilians could also be tried in military courts. He claimed the majority judgment misinterpreted Articles 8(3) and 8(5) of the Constitution. He cited the case of FB Ali, noting that he was tried after retirement as a civilian. The judgment stated that FB Ali was not retired at the time of the crime, making his case different.
In response, Justice Mandokhail said, “Let’s see whether we agree with your argument or not. The accused involved in the May 9 incidents have no connection with the armed forces. These individuals aren’t even ex-servicemen. Let’s use the term ‘civilians’ instead.”
Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked whether civilians could be tried in military courts. Justice Musarrat Hilali inquired whether fundamental rights are entirely suspended when someone comes under the Army Act. Justice Ali Mazhar asked about international practices and whether any examples were available.
The Ministry of Defense’s lawyer responded that he had examples and would discuss them later.
Read More: Sindh CM Sets January 11 for Malir Expressway Inauguration
Broader Implications Raised by Justices
Justice Mandokhail asked whether military trials should also apply to attackers who target soldiers, noting that many of Pakistan’s soldiers have been martyred. He questioned why the cases of martyrs are not tried in military courts and which cases qualify under Article 8(3) for military court trials.
Khawaja Haris replied that the current case does not focus on who could be tried in the future. Justice Mandokhail countered by saying the central question is the extent to which civilians can be tried in military courts.
Justice Musarrat Hilali reiterated that military court trials for civilians were introduced for criminals involved in heinous cases like the APS tragedy. She questioned whether all civilians could be treated the same way. She further remarked, “Pakistan’s Constitution is not suspended.”
In response, Khawaja Haris maintained that fundamental rights remain intact, and judicial precedents affirm this.
The hearing continues, with critical questions being raised about the scope and legality of trying civilians in military courts.
Follow Day News on Google News, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, Whats App, and TikTok for latest updates