ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan continued hearing the Intra-Court Appeals (ICAs) regarding the trial of civilians by military courts. A seven-member constitutional bench led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan reviewed the appeals against an earlier apex court ruling. The bench heard arguments from legal representatives of the Ministry of Defence, federal and provincial governments, and other concerned parties.
The Ministry of Defence’s counsel, Khawaja Haris, defended the trial of civilians under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. He argued that amendments made through the First Amendment in 1974 placed civilians who commit certain offenses on par with military personnel for trial purposes. Haris contended that sections 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Pakistan Army Act align with the constitution and do not violate fundamental rights.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail clarified that military courts are valid but have limited jurisdiction for specific offenses like waging war against Pakistan and attacking military installations. He emphasized that these offenses were included after the 21st Constitutional Amendment, which was introduced in response to terrorism.
The court inquired about past terrorist attacks on Mehran Airbase, GHQ, and Kamra Airbase. Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi questioned where the suspects from these incidents were tried and whether any investigations were conducted after the attacks. Khawaja Haris responded that all terrorists involved in the Mehran base attack were killed and that military courts conducted trials in the GHQ attack case before the 21st Amendment. He promised to seek instructions regarding the Kamra base incident.
Justice Mandokhail highlighted that military courts were established for war-like situations and operate under special laws with limited jurisdiction compared to civilian courts under Article 175 of the Constitution. Haris clarified that the 21st Amendment was introduced to include additional offenses under military jurisdiction rather than being a prerequisite for trying civilians.
Khawaja Ahmad Hassan, representing former Chief Justice of Pakistan Jawad S. Khawaja, argued that civilians should not be tried under the Army Act as it excludes fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. He emphasized that suspects should face trial in civilian courts to ensure fair legal procedures.
Justice Rizvi questioned whether the scale of the 9th May incidents was larger than previous terror attacks on military installations and stressed the need for thorough investigations. Khawaja Haris assured the court that investigations and appropriate trials had taken place.
During the proceedings, Justice Mandokhail clarified his remarks from a previous hearing, expressing concern over media misreporting. He stressed that his reference was to “persons,” not “judges,” to avoid misunderstandings.
The court adjourned the hearing until Friday, with Khawaja Ahmad Hassan set to continue his arguments. The legal battle over civilian trials in military courts remains a crucial constitutional issue in Pakistan.
