- Justice Mandokhail seeks explanation of procedures followed to determine jurisdiction of cases
- Justice Mazhar notes all suspects booked under similar FIRs yet some tried military courts, others faced ATCs
- Justice Afghan demands clarity on the process for taking suspects into military custody
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench raised critical questions about the trial of civilians involved in the May 9 events, specifically the basis for sending certain suspects to military courts while others are being tried in anti-terrorism courts (ATCs).
Seven-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justices – Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan, resumed the hearing the intra-court appeal against the trial of civilians in military courts.
During the proceedings, Ministry of Defence counsel Khawaja Haris argued that the interpretation of Article 233, which pertained to the suspension of fundamental rights during an emergency, was incorrect when the decision to conduct military trials for civilians was made.
He emphasised that fundamental rights could only be suspended under an emergency, as was the case during the tenure of Gen Pervez Musharraf.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar countered, stating that this case does not involve the suspension of fundamental rights. He pointed out that during Musharraf’s era, rights were suspended due to a lack of the right to appeal.
Justice Aminuddin Khan raised the issue of whether an emergency had been declared in this case, prompting Justice Mazhar to clarify that the suspension of fundamental rights required an emergency to be in place. Justice Musarrat Hilali also pointed out that, in the present case, the fundamental rights of the accused were not suspended, nor was an emergency declared when the individuals were taken into military custody.
Justice Musarrat Hilali asked who determined the jurisdiction for trials in military courts and how the differentiation was made between cases that proceed in ATCs and those sent to military courts.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that all suspects from the May 9 incidents were booked under similar FIRs and questioned why some were subjected to military trials while others faced ATCs.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan asked whether there was any ATC order transferring suspects to military courts and demanded clarity on the process for taking suspects into military custody.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail sought an explanation of the principles and procedures followed to determine the jurisdiction of cases. He also remarked, “An accused is acquitted in an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC), but then sentenced by a military court. Is there any special evidence presented in military courts that isn’t considered in civilian courts?”
