Supreme Court Calls Explanation on Civilians’ Military Trial

Monitoring Desk – Cases involving 103 suspects linked to the May 9 incidents were taken to military courts, while others are being tried in anti-terrorism courts (ATC). The question arises: how is it decided whether a military court or an anti-terrorism court will handle a case?

In a case regarding the trial of civilians in military courts, Supreme Court Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghani raised concerns, asking where is the decision regarding the transfer of suspects to military custody by the anti-terrorism court stands.

Justice Musarrat Hilali commented that this is not about the existence of military courts but about the issue of jurisdiction. How is it determined which case will go to a military court and which will not?

Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked who decides where a case will be tried for a particular crime, and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired how cases are differentiated and based on which principles. Justice Hassan Azhar questioned whether the May 9 incident is more serious than terrorism.

During the hearing, there was also mention of Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked if a case involving an enemy spy like Kulbhushan could be tried in a military court, to which Khawaja Haris responded that such a case could not be tried in a military court.

The Additional Advocate General of Punjab presented a report regarding keeping prisoners in solitary confinement, mentioning that after breakfast, they are sent to the yard. Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked if this was the death cell, to which the Additional Advocate General responded that it was not, saying prisoners are even given coffee at the jail’s shop.

Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked that they would obtain a report from the Jail Reforms Committee if the statement was inaccurate.

Advocate Faisal Siddiqui commented that Khawaja Haris had argued in the NAB amendments case for six months, comparing it to a long test match. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail responded, asking if he wanted to play like a T20 match instead, and advised allowing the counsel to present arguments as per his preference.

The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench adjourned the hearing of the case in military courts until tomorrow.

key points from the story:

1. Case of May 9 Incidents: A case involving suspects connected to the May 9 incidents is being tried in a military court, while other related cases are being handled by anti-terrorism courts (ATC).
2. Supreme Court’s Concern: The Supreme Court raised questions about the decision-making process regarding whether a case should be transferred to a military court or an anti-terrorism court.
3. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan’s Query: He inquired about the decision to place suspects in military custody and asked where the decision of the anti-terrorism court stood.
4. Justice Musarrat Hilali’s Remarks: She emphasized that the issue is not about the existence of military courts but about determining their jurisdiction and which cases should be heard there.
5. Judicial Questions on Jurisdiction: Justices Jamal Mandokhail and Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned the criteria and principles used to decide which cases are transferred to military courts.
6. The May 9 Incident: Justice Hassan Azhar questioned whether the May 9 event was more serious than terrorism, raising concerns about the level of seriousness in the case.
7. Kulbhushan Jadhav: The issue of Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav was raised during the hearing. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked whether a case like his could be tried in a military court. Khawaja Haris argued that Jadhav’s case could not be tried in a military court.
8. Prisoner Confinement: The Additional Advocate General of Punjab provided a report about the conditions of prisoners in solitary confinement. It was clarified that prisoners are not in a death cell and are allowed basic amenities like coffee.
9. Jail Reforms Committee: Justice Musarrat Hilali pointed out inaccuracies in the report and mentioned that a report would be sought from the Jail Reforms Committee.
10. Counsel’s Argument Style: Advocate Faisal Siddiqui compared Khawaja Haris’ lengthy arguments in the NAB amendments case to a test match, while Justice Jamal Mandokhail joked about wanting quicker arguments like in a T20 match.
11. Case Adjourned: The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench adjourned the hearing of the case in military courts until the following day.