Military Trial Case: No One Can Be Punished Without Evidence

Military Trial Case: No One Can Be Punished Without Evidence

Military Trial Case: No One Can Be Punished Without Evidence

Islamabad:

During the hearing of the case regarding the trial of civilians in military courts, Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that no one can be punished without evidence. He stated that if there is no evidence before him, the accused will be acquitted, and then people will claim that the judiciary ranks at 250th place.

A seven-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the intra-court appeal against the trial of civilians in military courts.

Former Chief Justice Jawad S. Khawaja’s lawyer, Khawaja Ahmad Hussain, argued that if Article 8(3)(A) is applied to his case, then fundamental rights will cease to exist. He emphasized that civilians do not fall under military trials, clarifying that he is not challenging the entire Army Act. He also referred to Justice Muneeb’s ruling on the matter.

Justice Musarrat Hilali noted that just the previous day, they were convinced that military trials are fair trials.

The lawyer responded that the federation’s arguments differ. Earlier, they argued that under Article 8(3)(A), the matter cannot be examined. At this, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that any right that is consistent can be challenged.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated that a particular clause was added in 1967, while the original provision has been in place since 1952. The act has remained in force since 1967. He recalled that in the F.B. Ali case, the matter was controversial, leading to different interpretations. He further mentioned that currently, discussions revolve around what should be done if a political party engages in such actions. He also referenced incidents like the Mehran Base attack in his previous remarks.

During the hearing, Justice Musarrat Hilali inquired about the difference between civilians involved in the May 9 incident and those in the December 16 attack. In response, Khawaja Ahmad Hussain explained that the December 16 attackers were involved in terrorism, and amendments were later introduced to conduct their trials.

The lawyer for the former Chief Justice argued that ordinary civilians are not subject to the Army Act, although it does apply to civilian employees of the Pakistan Armed Forces. Justice Hassan Rizvi then questioned whether the Army Act applies in cases of attacks on air bases.

Justice Musarrat Hilali further asked about the distinction between the terrorist attack on the Army Public School (APS) and the protests on May 9. The lawyer clarified that the APS attack was an act of terrorism, leading to the 21st constitutional amendment.

Khawaja Ahmad Hussain stated that their case is not outside the Constitution. He emphasized that while trials for the May 9 suspects should be conducted, they should not be held in military courts.

Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that the court has the authority to review any legislation that contradicts the Constitution.

The lawyer further noted that the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) issued a statement on May 15 regarding the May 9 incident. He questioned how a fair trial could be ensured in military courts when the affected institution itself is involved in the trial process.

During the proceedings, Justice Musarrat Hilali pointed out that these arguments pertain to the merits of the case. Justice Aminuddin Khan advised the lawyer to limit his arguments to the judicial decision.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar commented that nullifying Section 2(1)(d)(2) of the Army Act could impact cases like that of Kulbhushan Jadhav. In response, the lawyer stated that the court ruling did not address Jadhav’s case.

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked where a foreign spy, if caught in the future, would be tried. The lawyer responded that such cases should be handled by the Anti-Terrorism Court. Justice Hassan Azhar then smiled and remarked, "Alright then."

Justice Aminuddin Khan found it unusual that a legal provision could be annulled while simultaneously granting exemptions for special remedies.

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi inquired whether Pakistan’s armed forces could use Section 2(1)(d)(2) of the Army Act in the future. The lawyer responded that, as per Justice Ali Mazhar, this section would not be applicable in the future, and he intended to further elaborate on his arguments.

The jury in Pakistan had been talking how the laws apply to those incidents, especially regarding spy agencies and combat ordinances. Here's a simple understanding of what happened: 

1. Where Will a Foreign Spy Be Tried? 

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi requested, "If a foreign spy is caught in the future, where will he be tried?" 

The advocate responded that all such situations should really be dealt with by the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC). 

Justice Rizvi once again grinned and even said, "Alright then," presumably denoting that he recognised the answer or found it interesting. 

2. Justice Aminuddin Khan's Concern About the Law 

Justice Aminuddin Khan found it peculiar that a law control could well be abruptly cancelled (annulled) though still actually enable special cases for exceptional situations. 

This implies that while the law was really being excluded, some citizens may still get pleasure from particular therapies under it, that seemed perplexing or paradoxical to him.

Can the Army Still Use Section 2 (1) (d) (2) of the Army Act? 

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi requested, "Can Pakistan's army still use this section of the Army Act in the future?" 

The legal advisor replied that, as per Justice Ali Mazhar, this section should not be used in the future. 

The legal advisor additionally says he would discuss his reasons even more fairly late. 

What This Means 

The jurists enough that describing whether combat policies must still extend in such scenarios. They have also been doubting if it felt right to eliminate a legal whilst also permitting some individuals use its economic advantages. The talk goes to show that the judge is meticulously analyzing how policies should always be adapted in the future.