Islamabad: During the Supreme Court hearing on the trial of civilians in military courts, Justice Jamal Mandokhail raised the question: *”Do cases go to military courts because they tend to give harsher punishments?”*
A 7-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, was hearing the appeals against the decision to try civilians in military courts. During the proceedings, Khawaja Haris, the counsel for the Ministry of Defence, presented rebuttal arguments.
While arguing, Khawaja Haris stated that if a crime is related to the Defence of Pakistan or the Service Defence of Pakistan, the trial would take place in a military court. At this point, Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked, “What is the definition of Defence of Pakistan?”
Justice Mandokhail remarked that if we consider the definition of Defence of Pakistan, then even the Supreme Court and Parliament fall under it. He added that railway stations could also come under this definition.
Justice Naeem Afghan noted that many cantonment areas include shopping malls and other commercial activities. He asked whether someone trying to enter such places without a permit would also be tried in a military court.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar pointed out that Karachi has six to seven cantonment areas, and it’s not the case that main roads are declared restricted zones. In response, Justice Hasan Rizvi mentioned that five to six Supreme Court judges reside in Clifton Cantonment, which has not been declared a restricted area.
At this point, Justice Jamal Mandokhail shared that he was once denied entry into a cantonment area for not having a permit.
He further said that the Official Secrets Act has existed in Pakistan from the beginning. He questioned, “Do cases go to military courts because they hand down more severe punishments? Why are such cases not tried in regular courts?” He clarified that there is no disagreement over the validity of the Army Act.
Justice Mandokhail then asked why there isn’t an independent forum for military trials. In response, the counsel for the Ministry of Defence stated that the Constitution says military trials cannot be assessed in the context of fundamental rights.
