Top court seeks details of FIRs registered on May 9 and 10 and adjourns hearing on military court case until Friday.
ISLAMABAD: (UrduPoint/Pakistan Point News-Dec 12nd, 2024) The Supreme Court (SC) Constitutional bench on Thursday observed how civilians could be deprived of their fundamental rights while hearing a government's appeal against nullification of civilian trials in military courts.
A SC constitutional bench led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan took up the matter of government's appeal against the trial of the civilians in the military courts.
Federal government counsel Khawaja Haris while representing the government argued that the court's decision in the military courts' case comprised two parts.
He argued that one part nullifying the sections of the Army Act while the other was related to the custody of suspects in military courts.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked whether the five-member bench declared sections of the Army Act inconsistent with Article 8 (fundamental rights of citizens) of the Constitution and what justification the decision provided for this conflict.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that the entire case of military courts revolved around Article 8. He questioned how someone not part of the armed forces could be subjected to its discipline.
Khawaja Haris responded that discipline could be applied if the law permitted it.
Justice Mandokhail further argued, "A person in the army is subjected to military discipline, someone in the agriculture department to its discipline. How can a person not associated with any department be subjected to army discipline? Wouldn’t subjecting an unrelated individual to military discipline violate Article 8? How can someone who is not a subject of the Army Act be deprived of fundamental rights?"
Haris explained that in specific circumstances, the Army Act is applicable to civilians and that fair trial rights under Article 10-A are also present in military trials.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that in the *F.B. Ali* and *Sheikh Riaz Ali* cases, similar provisions of the Army Act were declared void, and four judges had invalidated sections of the Army Act in their decision.
Khawaja Haris argued that the court lacks the authority to nullify provisions of the Army Act.
Justice Mandokhail questioned, "If someone even contemplates incitement, would the Army Act apply to them? Has the Army Act rendered sections of Article 8 ineffective? The highest office in Pakistan is that of the President. If the Presidency is attacked, the trial will be conducted in an anti-terrorism court. If army property is attacked, the trial is held in a military court. Why this difference?"
Haris replied that this distinction was made by lawmakers through legislation.
Justice Mandokhail asked, "If a soldier kills their officer, where will the case be tried?" Haris responded that such a case would proceed in a regular court.
Justice Mandokhail added, "The concept of cantonment was first introduced by Caliph Umar Farooq (RA), who maintained strict discipline by keeping the army separate from the general public. Article 8 of the Constitution mentions army laws concerning their discipline. The military's discipline remains intact today, and may Allah keep it so. However, if civilians are brought under military discipline, it could lead to unforeseen consequences. Attacks on military installations should also fall under the Anti-Terrorism Act."
Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked that the killing of a soldier due to personal enmity is different from an organized attack, such as those seen in Balochistan.
The Supreme Court sought details of FIRs registered on May 9 and 10 and adjourned the hearing on the military court case until Friday.
