Islamabad – Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail has raised a crucial question regarding the trial of attacks on the Parliament House and Supreme Court in anti-terrorism courts (ATCs), while an attack on the General Headquarters (GHQ) is handled by military courts.
During Monday’s hearing of an intra-court appeal against the trial of civilians in military courts, Justice Mandokhail remarked that in his view, all three attacks should be treated equally.
A seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the case, where former Chief Justice Jawad S. Khawaja’s lawyer, Khawaja Ahmad, presented his arguments.
Ahmad argued that civilians cannot be subjected to court-martial under any circumstances, asserting that military courts do not meet the requirements of a fair trial.
He pointed out that in a previous Supreme Court ruling, all five judges had expressed differing opinions on the transparency of military trials. The lawyer further questioned whether there was no distinction between a terrorist, an enemy spy, and an ordinary civilian.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi advised the counsel to make a clear distinction in his arguments. In response, Ahmad stated that he was not defending any terrorist or accused individual but emphasized that if civilians could be court-martialed, then the 21st Constitutional Amendment would not have been necessary.
Justice Rizvi noted that the amendment added specific crimes to the Army Act, while Ahmad countered that if court-martial was already possible before the amendment, then the court must acknowledge that the amendment itself was unnecessary.
Justice Mandokhail also pointed out that the 21st Amendment excluded political parties from its scope, highlighting that the key issue in the case was determining who falls within the jurisdiction of the Army Act.
Ahmad further argued that Article 175 was amended under the 21st Amendment and that military courts do not provide for bail until a verdict is reached.
Justice Rizvi responded that military courts conduct expedited trials, often delivering verdicts within 15 days, making bail irrelevant. He added that appeals against military court decisions are reviewed by independent forums, ensuring that the accused has rights both before and after sentencing.
Ahmad acknowledged that the Army Act is well-structured but insisted that its applicability needed clarification. He urged the court not to set a precedent for court-martialing civilians, arguing that such a move would violate fundamental human rights.
After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing until tomorrow.
