ISLAMABAD:
Justice Aminuddin Khan, the head of the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court agreed with the argument forwarded by the lawyer for the defence ministry that declaring various provisions of the Army Act as null and void was not the correct decision.
The seven-member Constitutional Bench held the 46th hearing of the intra-court appeals against a previous verdict by the apex court that barred military courts from trying civilians. Defence ministry’s lawyer Khawaja Haris continued his rebuttal to the arguments by the other side.
Haris said that the court martial of civilians was not a matter of the army’s ego, rather it was in the national and security interest. Haris argued that legislation was the right of parliament, which would decide the extent of the jurisdiction of a particular law.
During the course of proceedings, Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that the very purpose of the Army Act was to keep discipline in the forces. Haris, however, said that it was the prerogative of parliament to legislate and decide on whom a particular law to be applied.
Justice Mandokhail remarked that the Constitution was above parliament, and that parliament had to move under and according to the Constitution. Haris replied that things should be examined in a broader and collective ambit of the Constitution instead of focusing on a particular clause.
He stressed again that it was the prerogative of parliament to decide about the implementation of a particular law in a particular situation. Justice Mandokhail asked whether parliament could broaden the jurisdiction of the Army Act, Haris said that the question was not before the court yet.
“We agree with you at least on Article 8(5) of the Constitution,” Justice Mandokhail observed. Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that the judgment under discussion was not correct to the extent of Section 2/1-D and “I agree with the counsel” on this point.
Sitting on the bench, Justice Musarrat Hilali said that her question whether the ‘military courts were the same as provided by Article 175 of the Constitution’, remained unanswered. Haris said that he would focus on Article 8 and answer the main question regarding trial of civilians in military courts.
The court was hearing this case on almost daily basis for last more than a month but adjourned the proceedings for April 7, 2024. Justice Aminuddin Khan wrote in his order that the bench was adjourned for three weeks because of the unavailability of the judges at the principal seat in Islamabad.
