ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court observed that a crime should be punished regardless of who committed it and in whichever court its trial was being held.
A seven-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Tuesday, heard intra-court appeals (ICAs) against the apex court’s decision on trial of civilians by military courts. The counsel of the members of the civil society has concluded his arguments.
At the outset, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired about the cases, to which, Faisal, replied that there were a total of 105 suspects facing military trials, of whom, 20 had been released.
Additional Attorney General (AAG) Aamir Rehman informed the bench that 19 suspects were also released as they were given remission. “There are 66 suspects who are in the jails,” the AAG added.
Faisal said that the apex court in its 13-12-24 order had allowed the military courts to announce the verdicts but said those will be subject to the final order of this Court (SC). He then gave some proposals to the bench, saying in America there was tradition that the parties of the cases proposed the judgments. He asked the bench to adopt the procedure given in LiaquatHussain case. He suggested that the court maintain balance between the rights of the citizens and the interest of the executive.
Faisal asked the Court that if it is allowing the trial before the military courts then there should be some safeguards, adding the civilians’ trial by the Court Martials should be rare, and the instant case is not such that the civilians entered into the army premises be tried by military courts.
“There is also an alternative to court martial,” the lawyer contended. At that, Justice Mandokhel said, “Regardless of who committed the crime, there should be a punishment for it. What difference does it make where the trial is held?”
Faisal then asserted that the difference would be akin to the “difference between earth and sky”. “One trial (civil court) is independent while the other is in the military,” he added. The lawyer argued that the cases over the May 9 violence pertained to “vandalism” only, adding that civilians could be tried in military courts in incidents where “Pakistan’s defence was in danger”.
The case was adjourned until Wednesday (March 5).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.