TLDR:
• Supreme Court allows military court verdicts
• Civilian trials in military courts debated
• Appellate rights deferred until final ruling
ISLAMABAD (The Thursday Times) — The Supreme Court of Pakistan’s constitutional bench has authorised military courts to issue verdicts for eighty-five accused individuals. However, these decisions remain contingent upon the Supreme Court’s final judgment in the ongoing case regarding civilian trials in military courts.
Constitutional bench debates military trials
A seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, resumed hearings on intra-court appeals challenging civilian trials in military courts. The bench, comprising Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hasan Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal, focused exclusively on this issue, postponing all other cases.
Justice Mandokhail questioned the compatibility of the Army Act’s provisions with the Constitution, raising concerns over its amendments to encompass broader categories of individuals. Justice Mazhar highlighted the need for clarity on the rationale behind striking down certain provisions, while Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the Army Act predates the 1973 Constitution.
Tensions between legal and constitutional frameworks
During the proceedings, the Defence Ministry’s counsel, Khawaja Haris, faced scrutiny for his remarks criticising the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings. Justice Mandokhail rebuked the use of the term “flaws,” urging respect for judicial decisions. Haris apologised, citing a miscommunication.
Justice Musarrat Hilali probed the implications of nullified provisions on past military trials, questioning whether sentences issued under these provisions remain valid. She warned against discriminatory practices in applying legal protections.
Justice Mandokhail emphasised that the Army Act governs military personnel who voluntarily submit to its jurisdiction, often at the cost of certain fundamental rights. This framework, he noted, is intrinsic to military discipline and employment conditions.
Legal rights and appellate concerns
The bench explored whether Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction is limited to petitioners’ requests or extends to broader aspects of the case. Justice Aminuddin clarified that while parties can restrict their arguments, the Court retains discretion to examine wider implications.
Justice Mandokhail stressed the gravity of the matter, seeking assurance on fundamental rights’ preservation. Justice Hilali questioned whether military courts’ jurisdiction over civilians undermines trust in civilian judicial systems.
Interim decision and postponed hearings
In its interim order, the constitutional bench granted military courts permission to announce verdicts for eighty-five accused individuals. These decisions are subject to the Supreme Court’s final ruling. The bench instructed that lenient sentences should be granted where applicable, with convicted individuals either released or transferred to jails accordingly.
It was clarified that appellate rights to challenge military court verdicts in high courts remain suspended until the intra-court appeals are resolved. The timeline for filing appeals will commence after the final judgment.
With winter recess approaching, the Supreme Court adjourned hearings until the first week of January, aiming to conclude the case promptly before addressing other significant constitutional matters.