- Justice Musarrat Hilali questions distinction between civilian and armed forces’ accused individuals
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court larger bench on Thursday resumed the hearing on intra-court appeals (ICAs) against annulling trials of civilians in the military courts.
A seven member bench headed by constitutional bench Chief Justice Amin Uddin along with Justice Jamal Mandokhail, Justice Musarat Hilali, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi,Justice Afghan,Shahid Bilal Hassan.
Counsel of defence ministry Khawaja Harris completed his arguments in the case while he argued that in the constitution the courts were mentioned in article 175.
He went on to say military courts were not mentioned under this article in the judicial system.
Continuing his arguments, he said that the military courts were established on the recognized separate law.
Justice Rizvi observed that the 21st Constitutional Amendment also mentioned the Mehran and Kamra base attacks.
He questioned where the trials of those who attacked the General Headquarters (GHQ) and the Kamra airbase were conducted.
“Two Orion aircraft worth billions of rupees were destroyed — was the 9 May offence more serious than these terrorist incidents?” he asked.
On Justice Hassan’s questions, the defence ministry’s lawyer said that all the terrorists of the Mehran base attack were killed.
“Was there no investigation after they were killed? Who were they? Where did they come from and how did they come?” Did the file of the Mehran base attack was closed after the terrorists were killed? questioned Justice Rizvi.
The GHQ attack case was tried in military courts and the trial took place before the 21st Constitutional Amendment, said the counsel.
At this, Justice Rizvi said that the constitutional amendment was made on the basis of all the attacks so that there would be no difficulties in the trial.
The counsel replied that all the terrorists who attacked the Mehran base had been killed. Justice Rizvi inquired whether there was no investigation after that; who they were, where they came from and how? Did the file of the Mehran base attack close after the terrorists were killed?
Justice Musarrat Hilali said that the Constitution is the supreme law and questioned the distinction between civilian and armed forces’ accused individuals.
Earlier at onset of the proceedings, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel observed that his remarks during the hearing of the intra-court appeals against the trial of civilians in military courts on Wednesday was misquoted.
The justice observed that his remarks were reported in the media that two judges called the decision of eight judges wrong. “Many judges contacted me regarding this news. I do not care about the media, but the record should be straight,” Justice Mandokhail added.
He said that he made this statement in a general sense. “In my yesterday’s observation, I mentioned individuals, not judges, but some media colleagues misquoted it,” the justice clarified.
Continuing his arguments, Defense Ministry’s counsel Khawaja Haris Articles 175 of the constitution deals with the setting up and functioning of courts. The military courts do not come under the purview of the article, he added.
Military courts are formed under a separate law, the counsel said.
Justice Mandokhail observed that the powers of the courts formed under Article 175 are extensive while the jurisdiction of the court formed under a specific law is limited.
“The 21st amendment decision clearly states that military courts were formed in a war situation and for the purpose, the constitution had to be amended to try civilians,” the justice remarked.
Advocate Haris argued that there was no need for an amendment for the trial of civilians as more crimes were added to the Army Act through the amendment.
The adjourned the hearing till Friday.
