In a significant turn of events, a six-member Supreme Court bench has conditionally suspended its unanimous ruling from October 23, nullifying military trials of 103 civilians. The ruling was made pending a final decision, with a majority of 5-1, as Justice Musarrat Hilali dissented from the decision. The widely praised October ruling declared that trying civilians in military courts for their alleged involvement in attacks on army installations was unconstitutional, emphasizing that they should be tried in criminal courts of competent jurisdiction. The recent verdict on intra-court appeals (ICAs) challenging this decision has sparked controversy and legal debates.
Background of the Case: The original verdict was delivered by a five-member Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Ijazul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, and Ayesha Malik. It asserted that trying civilians in military courts for their role in the aftermath of ex-premier Imran Khan’s arrest was ultra vires the Constitution. The appeals challenging this ruling were filed by the caretaker federal government and provincial governments in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Punjab.
Controversial Bench Formation: The recent proceedings have brought to light objections regarding the formation of the current bench. Justice Ijazul Ahsan objected to the composition, arguing that a seven-judge bench should have been formed, as agreed during the committee's fifth meeting. The objections raise concerns about maintaining transparency and avoiding any perception of bias in the proceedings.
Justice Masood's Inclusion: Former Chief Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja and others have raised objections to Justice Sardar Tariq Masood's inclusion in the bench. Justice Masood had previously recused himself from a nine-member bench hearing pleas against military trials. These objections add an additional layer of complexity to an already intricate legal landscape.
Legal Arguments and Counterarguments: The Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan has urged the court to conditionally allow the resumption of military trials for civilian suspects. The recent verdict indicates that the trials will continue, but the final ruling is conditional upon the Supreme Court's orders.
Defense Ministry counsel Khawaja Haris argued that the October 23 verdict did not specify which articles of the Constitution or provisions of the Army Act were declared unconstitutional. He emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the Army Act over civilians and asserted that certain provisions could not be declared void.
The ICAs challenge the original ruling, claiming that the Supreme Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and undermined the armed forces' ability to defend Pakistan. The appeals question whether offenses committed by civilians, such as seducing individuals subject to the Pakistan Army Act from their duty, should be triable under the Act.
Conclusion: The conditional suspension of the previous ruling by the Supreme Court adds complexity to an already contentious legal issue. The objections to the bench formation and the inclusion of specific justices raise questions about the transparency and fairness of the proceedings. As the legal saga unfolds, it is essential for the Supreme Court to address these concerns and ensure that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done. The final ruling on this matter will likely have far-reaching implications for the balance between military trials and civilian rights in Pakistan.
Comments
Post a Comment