Islamabad: The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench has rejected the government’s request to allow military courts to deliver verdicts on ongoing cases and dismissed, with a Rs. 20,000 fine, a plea to delay proceedings until the decision on the 26th constitutional amendment.
The seven-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard appeals, including one filed by former Chief Justice Jawad S. Khawaja, seeking to defer proceedings until the constitutional amendment’s legality is determined. Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked, “You seek delays because none of your loved ones are in custody. If you don’t accept the court’s jurisdiction, you may leave.” Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar added that court decisions always carry protection and criticized frequent petitions seeking delays.
During the hearing, Justice Mandokhail clarified that all current benches are constituted under the new amendment, including those handling constitutional matters.
Individual Cases Addressed
The court summoned Hafeezullah Niazi, father of detained lawyer Hassan Niazi, asking whether he wished to proceed with the trial. Niazi affirmed his willingness to pursue the case. The court subsequently rejected the plea for postponement, imposed a Rs. 20,000 fine, and adjourned the hearing to the next day.
Military Courts’ Jurisdiction Debated
The bench also turned down the government’s plea to allow military courts to issue decisions. Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked that granting such permission would imply accepting their jurisdiction.
Ministry of Defense lawyer Khawaja Haris argued that the distinction between civilians and military personnel is artificial, claiming military personnel are as civilian as ordinary citizens. He contended that two categories of civilians—those working for the armed forces and those attacking military installations or obstructing military duties—can be tried in military courts.
Justice Mandokhail noted that preventing military personnel from performing their duties is already covered under Pakistan’s Penal Code (PPC) and such cases should be tried in civilian courts. Haris countered that the Army Act applies to private contractors working with the military and should govern such cases unless declared invalid.
Key Observations
Justice Mandokhail highlighted that certain civilians, like those working in ordnance factories, fall under specific categories outlined in the Army Act. Justice Mazhar, however, argued that the Army Act’s provisions do not apply to the current case. Justice Hilali raised concerns about the classification of commanders’ residences as official offices, questioning the legitimacy of such designations.
The court adjourned the hearing, leaving significant questions around military courts and civilian jurisdiction unresolved.
