Islamabad: Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail on Wednesday stated that jurists conducting military trials operate under the relevant authorities.
The remarks were made during the hearing of an intra-court petition regarding the trial of civilians in military courts.
A seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, was holding the proceedings.
At the start of the hearing, Justice Hilali asked whether an investigation had taken place before framing charges. Justice Mazhar responded that investigations were conducted first, followed by formal charges.
Defence ministry’s counsel Khawaja Haris stated that the law clearly distinguishes between a trial and a fair trial.
Justice Azhar inquired whether an accused in a military trial is provided a state-appointed lawyer if they cannot afford one, to which Haris confirmed that state-funded legal representation was available.
Justice Mandokhail remarked that courts generally considered the accused as the “favourite child” of justice, questioning whether the same applies in military trials. Haris replied that under the Army Act’s rules, the accused is given full protection.
Justice Afghan shared that as chief justice of Balochistan, he had heard appeals against military court verdicts, and those decisions were not issued on blank papers, merely declaring an accused guilty or innocent. He added that when cases were challenged in high courts, complete judicial records, including evidence and procedural details, were provided by the General Headquarters.
Justice Rizvi then asked whether the families of civilian defendants or the media had access to military court proceedings. Haris informed the court that while the law mentions access for families and media, security concerns often restrict it.
The judge further asked whether military court judges have prior experience or are appointed without any. He also questioned if a defense officer presiding over a case has legal experience and whether a judge advocate present in court could conduct a court-martial. Haris confirmed that a judge advocate always sits alongside military judges.
Meanwhile, Justice Hilali expressed concerns about the impact of such verdicts on civilians, stating that society is already facing lawlessness.
Justice Mandokhail noted that session judges are appointed after decades of legal experience, whereas some recent cases show that even decisions by benches of eight judges are challenged by just two judges.
He then asked whether Article 175 of the Constitution provides for military courts. Haris responded that revisiting past military court rulings would be necessary if such a provision were established. He added that military courts exist in several countries and are recognized by constitutional law.
Justice Mandokhail also questioned why narcotics-related cases, fully controlled by the military, require a session judge’s appointment from the chief justice of Pakistan for trials. Haris argued that military courts have been legally excluded from Article 175 in all previous judicial rulings.
During the hearing, Justice Afghan directed the defence ministry to present examples of military court rulings beyond the May 9 cases. Haris presented the records in sealed envelopes and distributed seven copies of military court decisions to the seven-judge bench.
Haris urged the court to examine the trial process, stating that before proceedings, accused individuals were asked if they had any objections to the presiding officer, and none had raised any concerns.
Justice Mandokhail remarked that records should be reviewed at the appeal stage, making it inappropriate for the court to assess them at this stage. Justice Aminuddin assured that the Supreme Court would not let the trial be affected.
Meanwhile, Justice Rizvi noted that after reviewing records, the May 9 cases did not appear to fall under state security concerns. He suggested that making case records public could reveal the actions of the accused, allowing the public to judge their conduct.
The defence ministry’s lawyer replied that such decisions rest with the authorities.
Later, six judges of the constitutional bench, except for Justice Hilali, returned the trial records to Haris.
