The Supreme Court ruled that the military trials of civilians arrested in May 9 protests null and void. This decision follows the court’s review of a series of petitions questioning the legitimacy of prosecuting civilians in military courts.
The Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 4 to 1, that civilian trials under Section 2 D (i) (ii) of the Army Act are unconstitutional. According to the five-member bench, civilians should charged under ordinary criminal statutes.
Justice Yahya Afridi disputed Judgement on the legality of Section 2 D (i) (ii).
The written order of the court emphasized that all civilians and accused individuals, numbering around 103 people listed in the Attorney General of Pakistan’s submissions, must be tried by criminal courts of competent jurisdiction for the offenses with which they are charged under the ordinary and special laws of the land.
In the aftermath of rioting and destruction following the arrest of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan on May 9, civilians originally detained under the Army Act.
A five-judge bench led by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, also featured Justices Muneeb Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Mazahir Naqvi, and Ayesha Malik.
Ahmed Hussain, the counsel for Jawad S. Khawaja, stated his desire to read the order from the previous hearing as the session began earlier today. The judge, however, reminded him that the Attorney General had previously stated his reasons, meaning those arguments should dealt first.
Despite the government’s claims in court, lawyer Salman Akram Raja contended that military courts had already began prosecuting civilians. Justice Ahsan asked him to first hear the arguments of the Attorney General.
Mansoor Usman Awan, the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP), provided a full overview of the prior hearing, explaining why a constitutional amendment was not necessary for the current trial.
The military courts would handle the May 9 case in the same manner as civil courts, he told the court. The AGP argued that evidence would recorded and that the verdict would include extensive reasoning.
The court then questioned about the accused’s situation.
According to the Attorney General, the accused included both citizens and members of other groups. They would tried under a dual legal system based on the Army Act and civilian court standards. The accused would indicted, fulfilling the standards of a criminal case’s due process.
Furthermore, the AGP stated that Article 10A of the Constitution would enforced. Appeals would filed with the high court, and then with the Supreme Court. Furthermore, military courts may have jurisdiction over attacks on restricted regions and buildings.
The difference between the Army Act’s emphasis on discipline inside the armed forces and its application to civilians asked by Justices Ayesha and Mazahar. The AGP claimed that the law applied to anyone who temporarily connected with the military services, even those who had been discharged.
Justice Ayesha emphasized the Constitution’s commitment to defending fundamental rights, noting that the law attempted to ensure that the Constitution’s fundamental rights should not breached.
On Sunday, families of detainees petitioned the Supreme Court to become parties to the case. They said that the military courts’ procedure had an impact on SC and they should involved in the case.
