ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court Constitutional Bench on Friday allowed military courts to announce decisions for 85 accused individuals.
The Constitutional Bench ruled that the decisions of the military courts would be conditional on the decision of the pending case in the Supreme Court.
The case regarding the trial of civilians in military courts was heard by the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench, which decided to adjourn all other cases except the military courts’ cases. Justice Aminuddin Khan stated that only the case related to military courts would be heard today.
Can the Army Act be amended to bring everyone under its jurisdiction? At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel remarked that arguments should first be presented on whether the voided provisions of the Army Act are in accordance with the Constitution. He asked, “Can the Army Act be amended to bring everyone under its jurisdiction?”
Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar inquired about the reasons for declaring the provisions void in the court’s decision. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel mentioned that the fact that the Army Act was established before the 1973 Constitution should also be taken into consideration.
“Do not disrespect the judicial decision,” Justice Jamal Mandokhel In his arguments, the Defense Ministry’s lawyer, Khawaja Haris, pointed out flaws in the Supreme Court’s decision.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel remarked that one should not disrespect the judicial decision so much that it is considered flawed. In response, Khawaja Haris apologized, stating that his words were not of a legal nature.
Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar said that, as he had mentioned before, details about the incidents of May 9 should be provided. For now, the matter before us only concerns the Corps Commander’s house. If the case is to be limited to the Corps Commander’s house, then please let us know.
The Additional Attorney General informed the court that all the details had been received this morning. He would submit the details formally as part of a separate petition.
Justice Musarat Hilali remarked on what would happen to the trials conducted under the provisions that were declared void. She pointed out that before May 9, individuals had already been sentenced under these provisions.
Khawaja Haris said that typically, decisions made under the relevant provisions before they were declared void are protected. In response, Justice Musarat Hilali stated that this would be discriminatory towards those accused.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel remarked that no one in the Army is forced; individuals voluntarily join, knowing that the Army Act will apply to them. The Army Act does not provide fundamental rights. It was created specifically for military employment rules and discipline.
The Defense Ministry’s lawyer explained that no action in the military is done with criminal intent, and basic rights are only forfeited upon committing a crime.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked whether the court’s review in an appeal would be limited to the appellant’s request, or whether the court could also review other aspects of the decision.
Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that the parties can limit their arguments, but the court is not bound by this.
The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench allowed military courts to announce decisions for 85 accused individuals. The court declared that the military courts’ decisions will be conditional upon the ruling of the pending case in the Supreme Court.
The Constitutional Bench stated that those accused who might qualify for leniency should be granted relief and released, while those who cannot be released should be sentenced and transferred to jails.
It is expected that the case would be completed in January, said Justice Aminuddin Khan Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that the case regarding the trial of civilians in military courts is expected to be completed by January.
After the completion of this case, petitions against the 26th Amendment would be scheduled in the second week of January. He mentioned that they have many cases including those related to the 26th Constitutional Amendment, pending in the pipeline.
The court later adjourned the hearing until after the winter holidays.
