The Supreme Court continues to deliberate on the constitutionality of civilian trials in military courts, as a constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin, hears appeals challenging the annulment of such trials.
During the latest proceedings, Defence Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris argued that the Army Act’s provisions are distinct and require specific procedural scrutiny, particularly when dealing with cases like hijacking or other major offenses.
Justice Musarat Hilali raised concerns over the qualifications and authority of military officers issuing verdicts, especially in death penalty cases.
She pointed out procedural gaps, questioning how a trial officer’s findings are passed on to another officer for sentencing. Justice Jamal Mandokhel highlighted that the Army Act could be amended to include crimes like hijacking but stressed the need for careful examination of military trial procedures to ensure fairness.
Addressing the May 9 cases, Justice Hilali questioned the legality of conducting military trials under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), noting that such provisions typically fall outside the Army Act’s scope.
Khawaja Haris clarified that the Army Act applies only to those violating the Official Secrets Act, with a separate investigation system for suspects in military custody.
Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman informed the court that of the 5,000 individuals implicated in May 9 cases, only 105 were tried in military courts.
Justice Mandokhel emphasized the limited scope of appeals against military court decisions and called for broader access to civilian judicial review for such cases.
The hearing shed light on the complexities of military and civilian judicial systems, underscoring the need for transparency and safeguards to protect fundamental rights.
![What is Balochistan Liberation Army [BLA]?](https://www.theopinion.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/BLA-Reuters-350x250.webp)
