Supreme Court hears appeal against civilian trials in military courts

Islamabad: The Supreme Court continued hearing the intra-court appeal against the trial of civilians in military courts, where Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned the significance of the trial court, asking, “Does it make a difference where civilians are tried?”

A seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, is overseeing the case. The other members include Justices Jamal Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan.

During the proceedings, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar enquired about the number of individuals released from military courts. Advocate Faisal Chaudhry informed the court that out of 105 accused, 20 had been released, while the additional attorney general added that 19 more were later freed, leaving 66 still imprisoned.

Advocate Faisal Siddiqui argued that in the United States, both parties have the right to propose a judgement after presenting their final arguments. He further suggested that if a court-martial is deemed necessary, there are alternative legal options available within the system.

Justice Mandokhail emphasised that punishment should be ensured for any crime, regardless of the trial court. However, Advocate Siddiqui countered by highlighting the significant difference between military and civilian trials, stressing that civilian courts operate 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, after which petitioner Bushra Qamar’s lawyer, Abid Zuberi, began presenting his case. The hearing remains ongoing.