ISLAMABAD: During the Supreme Court’s hearing on the intra-court appeal against the trial of civilians in military courts, Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned the significance of the trial court.
A seven-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, is hearing the case. Other members include Justices Jamal Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan.
“Does it make a difference where civilians are tried … ?” argued Justice Mandokhail during the proceedings. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired about the number of individuals released from military courts.
Advocate Faisal Siddiqi, representing civil society petitioners, argued there is a stark difference between civilian and military trials, stating, “One trial is independent, the other is in the military.”
Advocate Faisal Siddiqi informed the court that out of 105 accused, 20 had been released. The Additional Attorney General added that an additional 19 were later released, leaving 66 currently imprisoned.
Advocate Siddiqui argued that in the US, both parties are given the right to propose a judgment after final arguments. He suggested that if court-martial is deemed necessary, there are alternative legal options available.
Justice Mandokhail emphasized that punishment should be ensured for any crime, regardless of the trial court. Advocate Faisal Siddiqui countered, stating that there is a big difference between a military trial and a civilian trial, as the latter is conducted independently.
The court observed that all legal forums are available and respected. Advocate Siddiqui referenced Article 8(3)(A), arguing that F.B. Ali had previously stated that laws could not be challenged.
Following these discussions, Advocate Faisal Siddiqui concluded his arguments, while petitioner Bushra Qamar’s lawyer, Abid Zuberi, began presenting his case.
