ISLAMABAD – The trial of civilians by military courts remains hot topic over concerns related to fundamental freedom rights, and now Suprme Court judge Justice Jamal Mandokhel expressed constitutional concerns.
The Constitutional Bench, led by Justice Amin-ud-Din, deferred the hearing of an intra-court appeal against the trial of civilians in military courts until tomorrow amid ongoing legal debates about the executive’s role in the judicial process.
During today’s proceedings, Justice Jamal Mandokhel raised significant constitutional concerns, saying the Constitution already made it clear that the executive cannot act as the judiciary. He stressed powers, questioning whether the executive could serve as the judge in cases involving crimes against it.
The case revolves around the trial of civilians in military courts, with Khawaja Haris, counsel for the Defence Ministry, citing a previous Supreme Court ruling that allowed for the court-martial of civilians under certain circumstances. Justice Mandokhel, however, pointed out that the law offers alternative forums, such as counter-terrorism courts, for addressing such issues.
Another key point was raised about applicability of the Army Act to civilians. Counsel defended its use, stating that the Act covers various categories beyond military personnel. SC Justice Mandokhel countered that the Army Act was primarily intended for the armed forces and that civilians should not be deprived of their fundamental rights.
