The Supreme Court’s hearing on the trial of civilians in military courts saw defense counsel Khawaja Haris unable to complete his arguments.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail, a member of the constitutional bench, stated that the court’s role is to determine whether the trial aligns with the constitution, emphasizing that addressing terrorism is Parliament’s responsibility, not the judiciary’s.

He warned that if the court begins to consider the impact of its decisions on terrorism reduction, it may become unable to deliver a ruling.

Led by Justice Amin Uddin, the seven-member constitutional bench also included Justices Jamal Mandokhail, Musarat Hilali, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal as they examined the validity of the military courts’ authority to try civilians.

Khawaja Haris presented his arguments and cited judicial precedents, including those from former judge Syed Zaman Siddiqui. He asserted that in instances where civilians vandalize military installations or steal military equipment, the Army Act should apply.

Justice Mandokhail raised the issue of how First Information Reports (FIRs) are registered, questioning the investigation process and relevant procedures. Haris responded that the armed forces are empowered to arrest civilians under the Army Act.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar added that an FIR must exist prior to any arrest, while Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi noted that arrested individuals must be brought before the appropriate magistrate.

Justice Mandokhail referred to Section 2D of the Army Act, indicating that a person only becomes an accused once a charge sheet is filed. Haris contended that the Constitution of Pakistan provides a distinctive jurisdiction for court-martial proceedings.

Read more

SC asks govt for clarity on process of military trials

Military courts case: SC questions how executive can behave as judge

Civilians’ military trial: judge asks is crime of May 9 more serious than terrorism incidents

Justice Mandokhail sought clarification on the constitutional basis for military courts, asserting that they do not appear to fall under Article 175. In response, Haris pointed to several judicial decisions related to court-martials.

The court ultimately adjourned the hearing on civilian trials in military courts until the following day, at which time Khawaja Haris will continue his argumentation.