ISLAMABAD:
The seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Thursday raised questions over the decision-making process of military courts as it sought details of civilians tried so far by these courts.
While hearing the intra-judicial appeal against the apex court’s decision on the military trial of civilians, the judges said the court wanted to see the proceedings and whether the requirements of a transparent trial were met before the military court.
Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris continued his arguments. He said procedure was followed during military trials. On this, Justice Hassan Rizvi noted that the court had requested the military trial records, because the court wanted to see how the decision on evidence was made during the trial.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that the court also wanted to see the proceedings and whether the requirements of a transparent trial were met in the military court. Haris said neither the high courts nor the Supreme Court could look into the merits.
He added that the court would be presented with the record of a case for review. Justice Rizvi said the court should not discuss the evidence presented during the trial, but stressed that under the natural justice system, no one could be convicted without being heard.
Haris said the five-judge Supreme Court panel, which ruled against the military trial of civilians, did not properly assess the admissibility point. He added that the court could not even examine the merits of the trial record.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked whether the law on military trials of civilians could be amended. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that the constitutional article regarding fair trial was passed in 2010, while the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was passed in 1898, which provided for the complete procedure of a trial.
Justice Mandokhail raised the question as to what was the purpose of enacting the Army Act. Haris said the aim of the Army Act was to ensure that there was no hindrance to the activities of the armed forces. He added that the process of improving the law continued.
Justice Naeem Afghan noted that the Army Act dealt with officers and soldiers of the armed forces, but its Section 2 was amended in 1967 and the words “any person” were added, after which the Retired officers were also subject to military trial. .
He noted that if this Article 2 remained invalid, then a military trial against a retired officer would not be possible, adding that if a retiree underwent a military trial, that would also end. He said that even after the introduction of Article 10A in the Constitution, there was talk in the courts of fair trial.
Khawaja Haris said the constitutional amendment was passed for other reasons. Justice Mandokhail asked the defense ministry’s lawyer to try to complete his arguments on Friday (today). Later, the hearing was adjourned.
Separately, a three-member regular bench of the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of a case related to Section 191A.
Heading the court, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said the matter was not disposed of in the same regular court that heard the case on January 13.
