ISLAMABAD: During the hearing of intra-court appeals against the Supreme Court’s (SC) decision on civilian trials in military courts, Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked the Ministry of Defence’s counsel, Khawaja Haris, whether military courts can actually be considered “courts” or not.
A seven-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the intra-court appeals against the ruling allowing civilian trials in military courts.
Khawaja Haris, representing the Ministry of Defence, continued his rebuttal arguments and stated that he had submitted written submissions in response to the questions asked of him. He maintained that there was no doubt that fair trials are conducted in military courts, which were established under the law.
He further argued that in the Liaquat Hussain case, the SC had held that civilians could be tried in military courts, and that military court proceedings follow standard procedures and ensure fair trials. Officers in military courts take formal oaths to ensure complete justice. Justice Mandokhail remarked that Article 175 was the only article that provided justification for courts—he advised Haris to read it.
Haris responded by saying that in the cases of Mehroom Ali and Liaquat Hussain, the court had stated that court-martials do not fall under Article 175. Even in the judgment currently being appealed, it was stated that military courts do not fall under Article 175.
Under Article 142, the federal government has the authority to legislate under the Federal Legislative List.
He further argued that the federal government had enacted laws regarding military courts using this very authority, and that such authority and laws existed even under the 1956 and 1962 constitutions—at a time when Article 175 and the 1973 Constitution did not even exist.
Justice Mandokhail again posed the question: Can military courts be considered actual courts? If yes, then Article 175 should be revisited. Haris replied that military courts were courts, exercising special jurisdiction to conduct criminal trials.
The constitutional bench directed Haris to complete his rebuttal by tomorrow (Friday).
Justice Aminuddin stated that after tomorrow, the hearing would be adjourned until the 28th, as the bench would not be available before then. The Attorney General is to begin his arguments on the 28th.
Justice Aminuddin asked Haris how much more time he needed. Haris responded that he still needed to answer questions raised by Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Mandokhail, estimating he would need about 30 to 40 more minutes.
Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked that if the issue was with her questions, she would withdraw them.
Justice Mandokhail asked about the AG’s stance and whereabouts.
The additional attorney general replied that the attorney general would need two to three more days.
Justice Mandokhail expressed frustration, saying, “What kind of joke is this? Why are you unnecessarily delaying the case? Is there no intention of completing it?” Justice Hilali added, “The attorney general himself had said he would only need ten minutes—it was just about discussing the right to appeal.”
Aamir Rehman stated that the attorney general appeared only on court orders, and otherwise, Haris represented the federation.
Justice Mandokhail then questioned, “If the attorney general has already delegated his right to Khawaja Haris, why should we even listen to him?”
With that, the SC adjourned the hearing until tomorrow. –Agencies
