The Supreme Court annulled the trial of civilians in military courts

The Supreme Court of Pakistan invalidated the trial of civilians in military courts. A 5-member larger bench headed by Justice Ejazul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Mazahir Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik heard the case.

The Supreme Court allowed the petitions against the trial of civilians in military courts and declared the trial of civilians in military courts null and void.

The case against the trial of civilians in military courts was heard by a 5-member larger bench headed by Justice Ijazul Hassan, the bench includes Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Mazhar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik.

The trial of a civilian in a military court has been declared null and void by a 5-member bench.

The Supreme Court has ordered that the trial of 102 persons arrested in light of the incidents of May 9 and 10, whose list was presented in the court, should be conducted in ordinary criminal courts.

The provisions of the Army Act which were presented before the court under which a civilian could be tried, the court also declared these provisions to be unconstitutional.

When the hearing started today, Justice Ijazul Hassan said that according to the last order, the arguments of the Attorney General were going on, after the arguments of the Attorney General are completed, then they will see the procedure for conducting the case.

The petitioner’s lawyer, Salman Akram Raja, said that the trial in the military courts was started before the decision of the case.

Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan said in the arguments that he will inform why military courts were created through constitutional amendment in 2015, he will also tell the court why constitutional amendment is not necessary for military courts at this time.

Justice Ijazul Hassan said that who were tried in the military courts of the past? Were the accused in 2015 civilians, foreigners or terrorists?

Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan said that both local and foreign nationals were included in the accused, and the facilitators of terrorists were also included in the trial in 2015. The accused will be tried under Section Two One Day of the Official Secrets Act. , the question was asked that how will the charge be framed on the accused? All the requirements of a criminal case will be fulfilled in the trial under the Army Act, the trial of the accused on May 9 will be in the style of a criminal court, the reasons will be given in the decision and the evidence will also be recorded, for a transparent trial under Article 10 A of the Constitution. All the requirements will be fulfilled, appeals can be made in the High Court and then in the Supreme Court.

The Attorney General said that the 21st constitutional amendment was made because terrorists were not covered by the Army Act, the 21st constitutional amendment was made for the military trial of terrorists.

Justice Ijazul Hassan asked that the amendment was necessary for the trial of terrorists, so why not for civilians? Did the accused attack the army or the installations even at the time of the 21st constitutional amendment?

The Attorney General said the 21st Amendment included a provision for military trials of attackers in restricted areas.

Justice Ijazul Hassan asked that the trial which was not acceptable to military officers was done to others. The Attorney General said that the issue of bias was raised in the case of modification of military courts.

Justice Ijazul Hassan asked how civilians come under the ambit of the Army Act. Justice Ayesha Malik asked what Article 8 of the Constitution says, Mr. Attorney General?

The Attorney General said that legislation against fundamental rights cannot be sustained as per Article 8.

Justice Ayesha Malik said that the Army Act is for the establishment of discipline in the forces, how can the law of discipline in the forces be applied to civilians? How can the 21st Amendment be defended?

The Attorney General said that the discipline of the forces is internal and obstructing the duties of the forces is an external matter, anyone who falls under this category can be tried in the military courts.

Justice Ijazul Hassan said that the laws you are referring to are related to the discipline of the army. Justice Ayesha Malik said that the provision of fundamental rights can be left to the will of the parliament? The Constitution ensures the provision of fundamental rights at all costs, how can army discipline and suspension of fundamental rights be applied to citizens? If the court opens this door, the person who breaks the traffic signal will also be deprived of his fundamental rights. Should we interpret the constitution that fundamental rights can be suspended whenever he wants?

The Attorney General said that courts martial are not courts established under Article 175. Justice Ijazul Hassan said that courts martial are not under Article 175 but are courts established under the constitution and laws.

Justice Yahya Afridi asked what is the difference between court and court martial? The Attorney General said that the court martial is a military court established under the Army Act, the court martial is not under Article 175 but under the High Court, the decision of the military court can be challenged by a constitutional petition in the High Court.

Justice Yahya Afridi said that what will happen to the fair trial under Article 10A? The Attorney General said that due process was protected in the 21st Constitutional Amendment, the Army Act applies only when the offense is related to the Army, the Official Secrets Act can also apply to attacks on the Topi M House and the Foreign Office, Article 175. A court martial cannot be annulled on the basis of

The court returned the petitions of the accused in the custody of the army, Justice Ijazul Hassan said that there are no affidavits with the petitions of the persons in military custody. The applications of 9 accused in military custody were withdrawn.

After the arguments of the Attorney General were completed, the Supreme Court reserved its decision on the petitions related to the military courts, which have now been pronounced.