Supreme Court questions civilian trails in military courts, raises constitutional concerns

ISLAMABAD: The trial of civilians by military courts has been a hot topic over concerns related to fundamental freedoms and now Supreme Court judge Justice Jamal Mandokhel has expressed constitutional reservations.

A constitution bench headed by Justice Aminuddin adjourned the hearing of an intra-court appeal against the trial of civilians in military courts till tomorrow amid ongoing legal debate about the role of the executive in the judicial process.

During today’s proceedings, Justice Jamal Mandokhel raised important constitutional reservations, saying that the Constitution has already made it clear that the executive cannot act as a judiciary. He stressed on the powers and questioned whether the executive can act as a judge in criminal cases against it.

The case revolves around the trial of civilians in military courts, in which the defense ministry’s lawyer Khawaja Haris cited a previous Supreme Court judgment that allowed court-martial of civilians in certain circumstances. However, Justice Mandokhel pointed out that the law provides alternative forums, such as anti-terrorism courts, to address such issues.

Another important point was raised about the applicability of the Army Act to civilians. The lawyer defended its use, saying that the Act covers various categories besides military personnel. Justice Mandokhel of the Supreme Court said that the Army Act is primarily for the armed forces and citizens should not be deprived of their fundamental rights.