SC wants to review evidence standards in military court trials

The Supreme Court (SC) Constitutional bench on Monday said it wanted to review the standard of the evidence presented before military courts during civilian trials. 

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.

During the hearing of an intra-court appeal against civilian trials in military courts, SC bench emphasized the need to review the standards of evidence presented in such trials. Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi remarked that the court wanted to see whether the accused had been allowed to present witnesses.

Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris stated that records of one case could be shown, but the court could not review the merits of the evidence. Justice Rizvi responded that the SC had the authority to review and would not take any instructions from anyone. Khawaja Haris agreed with the court’s authority to review within certain limits.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that many crimes were mentioned in the Army Act, and under the Act, all crimes would apply to military officers.

He added that it was important to decide whether a civilian is subject to military discipline.

Khawaja Haris clarified that civilian trials fall under Section 31-D of the Army Act. However, Justice Mandokhail noted that Section 31-D pertains to preventing military officers from dereliction of duty.

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

Justice Musarat Hilali pointed out that the Constitution recognizes many tribunals, and the key issue was determining where and how certain cases should be heard.

She also questioned whether judges would fall under Article 6 for unconstitutional actions, referencing past cases involving the judiciary’s role in validating martial law.

In response to this, Khawaja Haris emphasized that Article 6 of the Constitution, which deals with the suspension of the Constitution, takes precedence over other laws, including the Army Act.

The hearing was postponed until tomorrow, and Khawaja Haris was instructed to complete his arguments.