Military courts case: Punishment for crime unaffected by trial venue, remarks Justice Mandokhail

The Supreme Court, during Tuesday’s hearing on appeals against the trials of civilians in military courts, concluded arguments presented by civil society lawyer Faisal Siddiqui. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that punishment must be served for crimes, irrespective of whether the trial is conducted in civilian or military courts, Aaj News reported.

A seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the appeals against the trials of civilians in military courts.

From where trial would begin if cases transferred from military court to ATC, asks SC judge

Civil society lawyer Faisal Siddiqui continued his arguments today.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired about the number of individuals released by military courts.

Faisal Siddiqui informed the court that out of a total of 105 accused, 20 had been released.

The Additional Attorney General added that 20 were released earlier, followed by 19 more, and currently, 66 accused remain in jail.

Accused tried by military courts: SC judge says won’t allow further trial

Faisal Siddiqui highlighted that in the United States, it is customary to allow both parties to propose judgments after arguments conclude. He argued that if military trials are deemed necessary, there should be alternatives.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail reiterated that punishment must be served for crimes, regardless of where the trial takes place.

Siddiqui emphasized the stark difference between trials in civilian and military courts, stating that one is free while the other is conducted in a military setting.

He noted that the cases related to the May 9 incidents primarily involve vandalism and argued that civilians should only be tried in military courts when there is a direct threat to Pakistan’s defense.

Justice Mandokhail responded that all judicial forums are available and respectable.

Concluding his arguments, Faisal Siddiqui referenced a statement by FB Ali in Article 8(3)(a), which stated that the law cannot be challenged. With this, Siddiqui’s arguments concluded, and the petitioner Bushra Qamar’s lawyer, Abid Zuberi, began his arguments.

Abid Zuberi argued that the Attorney General had previously informed the court about legislation granting the right to appeal. Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned whether the Attorney General could make such an undertaking if it was not explicitly provided for in the law. Zuberi replied that the Attorney General had adopted the government’s stance in court.

Following the arguments, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing on the intra-court appeal against the trials of civilians in military courts until tomorrow.

Lawyer Abid Zuberi will continue his arguments tomorrow.