Justice Mandokhel questions civilians’ trials in military courts
A seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court adjourned its hearing until Friday on intra-court appeals challenging the decision to try civilians in military courts. The proceedings focused on the applicability of the Army Act to civilians and the constitutional implications of such trials.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel raised key concerns, questioning how civilians not part of the armed forces can fall under military discipline. He asked whether applying the Army Act to unrelated individuals violates Article 8 of the Constitution, which safeguards fundamental rights. Justice Mandokhel further highlighted that departmental discipline typically applies only to employees of that department, challenging the rationale for extending military discipline to civilians.
Also Read:
Justice Musarrat Hilali also questioned whether trying civilians under the Army Act effectively suspends their fundamental rights, likening it to being removed from the realm of civilian legal protections.
Khawaja Haris, representing the federal government, argued that the Army Act can apply to civilians under specific circumstances and emphasized that the Supreme Court lacks the authority to nullify its provisions. He defended the government’s decision as a legislative measure, adding that suspects in military courts are provided with legal representation and access to evidence.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar acknowledged the bench’s role in addressing constitutional questions and identifying potential flaws in previous decisions. The judges also deliberated on the nature of offenses and appropriate courts for trials. Justice Mandokhel noted that an attack on the President’s House would fall under the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court, while an attack on military property could warrant a trial in a Military Court.
Read all the Breaking News Live on pakistantimes.com and Get Latest English News & Updates from Pakistan Times. Follow us on Whatsapp channel for more.
