An intra-court appeal hearing against the trial of civilians in military courts is currently underway, led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan in the Supreme Court’s seven-member constitutional bench. The case involves convicted military court prisoner Junaid Razaq, whose lawyer, Salman Akram Raja, continued presenting his arguments before the court.

Salman Akram Raja argued that the Liaquat Hussain case predates Article 10-A, and that the first mention of 2 (1) D (1) came in the 1975 FB Ali case. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel questioned whether fundamental rights would be violated if they were merged with any particular act, to which Salman Akram Raja responded that the Army Act is a “black hole,” and any amendment to it would nullify fundamental rights.

Raja further clarified that, under the law, there must be a direct connection to the Army Act for a crime to fall under its jurisdiction. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel inquired whether the Army Act would apply if a member of the armed forces committed a crime while at home, to which Salman Akram Raja gave the example of kite flying being banned in Punjab, emphasizing that such offenses would not be tried in military courts and would fall under civilian law.

Justice Jamal Mandokhel then asked about the inclusion of provision 2 (1) D (1) in this case. Salman Akram Raja explained that there were two issues in this case, including one related to Article 175.

Justice Mandokhel also referred to a domestic issue where a man marries a second wife without the consent of his first wife. Salman Akram Raja responded, questioning if such a matter would be referred to a military court under Article 3, similar to the approach taken in the Liaquat Ali case, where Article 3 had been applied.

Raja argued that provision 2 (1) D (1) is now part of the Army Act and assured that the door to fundamental rights would not be closed by it. The case continues as the court examines the constitutional implications of military court trials for civilians.