ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said on Tuesday that civilians shouldn’t be made to go through legal processes that aren’t in line with the Constitution and pointed out that military regulations are far stricter than regular legal guidelines.
The chief justices led a six-judge larger bench to hear the petitions challenging the trial of civilians in military courts. They emphasized the protections provided by the constitution for civilians and argued that military courts conduct summary trials, do not provide reasons for their decisions, do not record evidence, and are not accessible to the general public.
Resuming the case’s hearing was the bench, which also included Justices Ijazul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, and Ayesha A. Malik.
Former Chief Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja, Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Aitzaz Ahsan, and members of civil society have all submitted the petitions.
The petitions were filed after it was revealed that those responsible for the violence and attacks on government facilities, including military sites on May 9, would be put on trial in the military.
Abid Zuberi, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, contended during the hearing that the rule prohibiting civilians from being tried in military courts had been established in the Liaquat Hussain case before the Supreme Court in 1999.
He added that holding civilian trials in military courts requires a constitutional amendment. He added that executive authorities, not judicial officials, presided over the trials at the military court.
The SCBA president emphasized that the power to appeal a military court ruling to the high court and the Supreme Court was guaranteed by the 21st Constitutional Amendment.
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan began arguing after Zuberi. He said that the court had previously considered the 8th Amendment and the Liaquat Hussain issue.
While the whole court had considered the case involving the 21st Constitutional Amendment, a nine-member bigger bench heard the Liaquat Hussain case. The AGP then asked the court to read the June 23 court order, which was granted.
Justice Yahya Afridi discussed preserving public confidence and assembling the entire court in that order. According to the AGP, the federal government agreed with Justice Afridi’s statement and asked the chief justice to convene the entire court.
Justice Ayesha Malik informed the AGP that he had personally spoken his disapproval of a judge (Justice Mansoor Ali Shah) sitting on the bench in this regard. She inquired as to how the AGP might petition for the whole court.
The AGP responded that he was asking for the creation of a broader bench that would include all available judges. Justice Malik then questioned how the AGP could determine whether or not the bench was composed of the justices who were accessible.
The chief judge mentioned that he had seen the communication from judge Afridi. He explained to the AGP that not all judges were present in Islamabad when the case went before the Supreme Court, and he added that those who were present were all requested to join the bench.
Later, Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Sardar Tariq Masood declined to join the bench, the chief justice continued, and after three sessions, an objection was lodged against Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
The chief justice continued by stating that they were now unable to create a full court. He continued by saying that the judges had expressed their views on the topic of the full court and that he did not want to comment more.
The chief justice told the AGP that it would be preferable for him to present his case. He requested that the AGP support that court’s argument that civilians should be tried in anti-terrorism courts rather than military courts.
The independence of the judiciary was a topic of discussion, according to Chief Justice Bandia. He emphasized that the occurrence on May 9 was a very severe crime and that the accused was not being released.
The top judge said that military law was a very strict legislation and was not like common law, adding that civilians could not have a trial that was not in conformity with the Constitution.
Additionally, he continued, the petitioners had claimed that the military courts had weaknesses, adding that the decisions of the military courts lacked justification and that civilians were denied access during case hearings in the military courts.
He emphasized that while the matter was pending, citizens imprisoned in military custody should have access to all amenities offered in civilian custody. He expressed his happiness that relatives may see the inmates held by the army.
The defense minister’s attorney, senior attorney Irfan Qadir, objected, stating that he would seek for the exclusion of the chief justice and two other sitting justices from the hearing.
The top justice responded with a smile that his colleagues judges were excited to hear from him. He assured Qadir that the court would pay attention to him as he left the courtroom. The case hearing was postponed until today, Wednesday.
