Supreme Court Hearing on Civilian Trials in Military Courts: Key Questions Raised

Islamabad:The Supreme Court of Pakistan held a crucial hearing on the intra-court appeal against the decision regarding civilian trials in military courts. A seven-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Jamal Mandokhel, deliberated on the matter. During the hearing, Justice Mandokhel raised pertinent questions, including why militants involved in the 2014 Peshawar Army Public School (APS) attack were not tried in military courts despite the existence of the Army Act and the connection to military operations.

Lawyer for the Ministry of Defence, Khawaja Haris, argued that under the Army Act, if a crime is related to military operations, the trial should be conducted in a military court. However, Justice Mandokhel questioned why an amendment to the Constitution was necessary to allow military trials for such crimes, particularly in cases like the APS attack.

The court also discussed the concept of “collusion” (gath-jore) in crimes related to the military and the necessity to examine the intent behind a crime. Justice Mandokhel emphasized that while the Army Act allows for military trials, the issue of civilian trials in such courts remains complex and needs deeper scrutiny.

The court also revisited the 21st Constitutional Amendment, which had paved the way for military trials in terrorism-related cases. Justice Mandokhel remarked that the amendment was introduced because military courts were not able to function within the legal framework at the time. The bench further discussed the broader implications of the amendment and its application to national security issues.

The session also referenced former Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani’s emotional response when voting in favor of the 21st Amendment. Justice Mandokhel remarked that Rabbani’s tears reflected his realization of the significant impact of his decision.

As the hearing progressed, the judges sought to clarify whether the nature of a crime and the intent of the perpetrator should be determining factors in whether a case is tried in a military or civilian court. The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow, as the court continues to examine the legal complexities surrounding civilian trials in military courts.