TLDR:
• military courts challenged under Article 8
• constitutionality of trials for civilians debated
• supreme court requests FIR details
Islamabad (The Thursday Times) — The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard appeals challenging the constitutionality of military courts under Article 8 of the Constitution. A seven-member bench, led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, scrutinised the applicability of the Army Act to civilians and the implications for fundamental rights. The federal government has been directed to provide details of FIRs from May events.
Article 8 at the centre of debate
Justice Jamal Mandokhail highlighted that the military courts’ framework revolves around Article 8 of the Constitution, which governs laws conflicting with fundamental rights. He questioned how individuals outside the armed forces could fall under its discipline. Drawing on historical context, Justice Mandokhail remarked that the concept of cantonments was first introduced during the Caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab, emphasising strict discipline as essential for military cohesion.
The defence counsel argued that, under specific circumstances, the Army Act applies to civilians, citing legal precedent. However, the bench questioned whether this application undermines the protections guaranteed under Article 8. The court also inquired about the procedural fairness of military trials, including access to legal representation and evidence for the accused.
Application of army act to civilians
Justice Mandokhail expressed concern over extending military discipline to civilians, questioning its constitutional validity. The defence maintained that exceptional situations, such as attacks on military assets, justified such application. The court debated whether military trials for civilians conflict with fundamental rights or the broader spirit of the Constitution.
Justice Mandokhail further pointed out discrepancies in the interpretation of civilian accountability under the Army Act. He highlighted scenarios where acts such as incitement could lead to trial under the Act, questioning if this renders Article 8 ineffective.
Constitutional implications of military trials
The bench also examined previous judgments on the applicability of the Army Act, referencing cases where its provisions were declared invalid. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar stressed the importance of addressing legal flaws in earlier rulings to provide clarity on the issue.
Justice Mandokhail reiterated that attacks on military installations and assets, distinct from personal disputes, could be handled under anti-terrorism laws, questioning why separate trials were necessary under military jurisdiction. The court sought comprehensive details of cases tied to recent events to better understand the legal and constitutional implications.
