SC bench questions how distinction was made between cases tried in military courts, ATCs

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday adjourned the hearing on the intra-court appeal against the trial of civilians in military courts, ARY News reported.

The bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard intra-court appeals challenging the decisions of military courts. The bench also comprised Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal Hassan.

At the outset of the hearing advocate Khawaja Haris said that Article 233 does not suspend fundamental rights but rather applies in an emergency situation where rights can be suspended by the President.

Justice Jamal Mandokhel emphasized that the executive carries out the orders of the President, and the executive holds the powers to manage such matters. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned how some individuals were sent for trial in military courts while others were not, given that the FIRs for all the 9 May suspects were the same.

Read more: Six prisoners of May 9 cases released following pardon by military courts

SC judges Justice Musarat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan raised questions about how the distinction was made between cases tried in military courts and anti-terrorism courts (ATCs).

The hearing also touched upon the case of Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, with Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noting that after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the provision under Section 2-D of the Army Act was struck down, meaning that even a foreign spy could not be tried in military courts.

The case was adjourned until tomorrow to continue discussions regarding the distinction between military court trials and other court trials.