A seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Ameenuddin Khan, resumed hearing intra-court appeals against the trial of civilians in military courts.

PTI founder’s lawyer, Uzair Bhandari, completed his arguments as the court scrutinised various aspects of the Army Act and fundamental rights.

During the proceedings, Justice Ameenuddin Khan raised a pointed question: “Has any parliamentarian ever raised their voice against the Army Act in the assembly? Has anyone introduced a private bill against it?”

Justice Musarrat Hilali also questioned the historical context, asking whether people enjoyed fundamental rights under Ayub Khan’s 1962 constitution.

Also, read this

SC sets hearing for Imran’s petitions on May 9 events, alleged electoral fraud

Military courts: Understanding army act solves half the issue, says Justice Mandokhail

Justice Sarfraz Dogar should be stopped from working as IHC chief justice

Bhandari responded that fundamental rights were originally limited, and civilian criminal trials were meant to be conducted in regular courts.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail further inquired about the legal basis for trying civilians under the Army Act’s Section 2(1)(d).

Bhandari argued that the real issue was whether the Army Act could apply to civilians at all.

Court grills PTI lawyer over military involvement in trials

Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi raised concerns about security at military installations and the role of military courts in cases of attacks on these sites.

Bhandari countered that “we must move beyond the mindset that the military can do everything.”

Justice Musarrat Hilali confronted Bhandari about inconsistencies between his arguments and the PTI founder’s public stance. She pointed out, “You are saying one thing, but your client says he will negotiate only with those in power.”

Bhandari refused to comment on statements made outside the courtroom.

The debate intensified when Bhandari criticised the lack of due process in military courts, stating that “even a piece of paper is not allowed inside the jail during PTI founder’s trial.”

Justice Ameenuddin Khan swiftly responded, “If they don’t allow even a piece of paper, then how are letters making their way out of prison?”

Bhandari argued that military courts lack judicial oversight, stating that court-martial verdicts include death sentences without proper appeals, except for a mercy plea to the army chief.

Justice Mandokhail remarked that if military personnel are deprived of fundamental rights under Article 8(3), then they are also excluded from the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar referred to Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case, emphasising that even he was granted an appeal through special legislation following the International Court of Justice’s ruling.

The discussion also touched upon Pakistan’s compliance with international commitments. Bhandari warned that the European Union’s GSP Plus status could be at risk due to military trials of civilians.

However, Justice Mandokhail reminded him that fundamental rights are a constitutional obligation, not contingent on international benefits.

With Bhandari’s arguments concluded, the hearing was adjourned until the next day, when lawyer Faisal Siddiqi was set to present his arguments.