Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, a member of the Constitutional Bench, remarked on Tuesday that a crime must be punished regardless of the perpetrator or the court in which the trial takes place.
“No matter who committed the crime, there must be a punishment. What difference does it make where the trial takes place?” Justice Mandokhail observed during the hearing of the military courts case.
The seven-judge Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminud Din, is hearing intra-court appeals against the Supreme Court’s October 23, 2023 judgment, which annulled the trial of civilians involved in the May 9 riots by military courts. The same judgment also declared Section 2(1)(d) and Section 59(4) of the Army Act 1952 unconstitutional.
The other members of the bench include Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Hasan Azhar Rizvi.
Advocate Faisal Siddiqui, representing some petitioners, concluded his arguments, while former Supreme Court Bar Association president Abid Shahid Zuberi has begun his submissions. Zuberi is representing a petitioner, Bushra Qamar. Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman appeared on behalf of the state.
Responding to an inquiry by Justice Mazhar, Advocate Siddiqui informed the bench that 105 suspects were facing military trials, out of which 20 had been released. However, Additional Attorney General Rehman clarified that 19 suspects had been released from jail following the acceptance of their mercy petitions, while 66 suspects remain in custody.
Advocate Siddiqui argued that an alternative to court-martial exists. Justice Mandokhail reiterated that punishment should be ensured regardless of the trial venue. To this, Siddiqui responded that the difference between military and civilian courts was like the difference between earth and sky.
“One trial (civil court) is independent, while the other is in the military,” he contended.
He further argued that the May 9 violence cases pertained only to vandalism and that civilians could only be tried in military courts when Pakistan’s defense was under threat.
After Siddiqui concluded his arguments, Advocate Abid Shahid Zuberi began presenting his case. The hearing was adjourned until the next session.Let me know if you need any modifications!