SC Questions Military Trials, Have Lawmakers Ever Opposed the Army Act?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised serious questions regarding the legitimacy of military trials for civilians, inquiring whether any member of the National Assembly had ever objected to the Army Act or introduced a private bill against it.

The seven-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, deliberated on the constitutional and legal basis for trying civilians under military laws. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel questioned how the Army Act justified its applicability to civilians, while Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi referenced past cases linking terrorism-related offenses to military courts.

PTI founder’s lawyer, Uzair Bhandari, argued that military courts lack jurisdiction over civilians, stating that their trials should be conducted in general courts. He further highlighted that under Article 8(3) of the Constitution, fundamental rights do not fully extend to armed forces personnel.

During the proceedings, Justice Musarrat Hilali pointed out that amendments in the Army Act allow civilian trials if a clear link to military offenses is proven. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked whether the army could exercise judicial powers over civilians, suggesting that such authority should be limited.

The court also discussed international legal frameworks, with references to India’s independent military tribunal and the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav. The bench noted how Parliament swiftly legislated the extension of the former army chief’s tenure following Supreme Court instructions.

Bhandari concluded by asserting that military trials in Pakistan remain flawed and are merely a “formality on paper,” raising further concerns over the right to a fair trial.