Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that military courts cannot be compared with civilian courts and questioned, “Can one offer prayers with devotion without performing ablution?” — implying that a fair trial cannot be ensured without fulfilling fundamental legal requirements.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar stated that if the right to appeal exists in the high court, then the entire process of special courts can also be reviewed. He added that even military officers convicted in special trials can approach the high court, reinforcing the principle of judicial scrutiny.

Advocate Khawaja Haris, representing one of the petitioners, argued that while some grounds of the case are available, access to legal counsel remains a serious concern. He referred to the Vienna Convention, stating that Article 36 ensures the right to a fair trial for foreign nationals, including access to consular services — a right not uniformly granted.

SC hearings on civilian trials in Military courts spark legal debate

CJP says May 9 trials to be completed within four months, dismisses plea against Asad Qaiser’s bail

Justice Mazhar brought up the example of Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav, noting that under the Vienna Convention, India qualifies as the “sending state” and consular access is a right afforded to all foreign nationals, regardless of the crime.

Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi also referenced the Shah Zaman case, where it was acknowledged that while grounds for trial were available, the accused did not have access to legal counsel of their choice.

Despite lengthy arguments, Khawaja Haris could not complete his submissions, prompting the court to adjourn the hearing for another day.