- Web Desk
- 1 Hour ago

Can the common man be even tried under Army Act, asks SC
-
- Web Desk
- Jan 13, 2025

Raising questions regarding the limitations of the Army Act, Supreme Court Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked the court about application of the law specified for armed forces whether it could also be applied to civilians.
The SC’s Constitutional Bench resumed the hearing on civilian’s trial case in military courts on Monday. A seven-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan conducted the hearing.
Defense Ministry’s lawyer Khawaja Haris continued his arguments from January 10.
“The Army Act mentions various crimes but they all apply to military officers,” said Justice Mandokhail.
It was said that the Army Act needs to be contexualised according to the provisions of Official Secrets Act.
Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris maintained that the military courts have been recognised by the Constitution but Justice Mandokhail intervened and informed that the court must decide which cases should be given to military courts.
Justice Musarrat Hilali echoing similar views said that likewise the constitution validates many tribunals. She, however, raised an important question about the punishment in the Army Act for abrogating the Constitution. Harris was quick to inform that Article 6 could be applied and that the Army Act also prescribes punishment for violating the oath.
Justice Mandokhail lamented that the judiciary has been endorsing martial law, asking whether judges also fell under Article 6 for unconstitutional actions.
Adding to this, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar recalled that the names of judges were mentioned in the case pertaining to former dictator Pervez Musharraf: “The names, however, were later removed from the high treason trial.”
Also read: Does army officer have enough experience to pronounce death penalty: Justice Mandokhail
Justice Hilali demanded to know why the fundamental human rights were not included in the Army Act, and that the Constitution is the mother of all laws and should be regarded as supreme. Harris, however, maintained again that the accused in military courts also have rights, to which Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi asked if the recent decisions by the military courts were reviewed, would they have adhered to the laws.
Justice Aminuddin said that the courts can demand the records if needed and that the courts do not wish to influence convicts’ appeals. Justice Mazhar, however, stressed that the review would be necessary and even the Criminal Procedure Code mentioned everything, but appeals occur only when the trial does not follow the law.
Justice Rizvi pointed out that the SC itself granted conditional permission to military courts to issue decisions, to which the court reminded that it was still to be seen whether the accused were allowed to present defense witnesses. Justice Rizvi also added that the courts would also like to assess the standard of evidence presented to the military courts.
Harris maintained that the record of all cases save one cannot be shared and that the court cannot review evidence based on ‘merit’, to which Justice Rizvi said that the court shant mention it to anyone but has the authority to review regardless. Harris responded that he concurred with Justice Rizvi only about the court’s authority to review.
Justice Rizvi stated that some sections of the Army Act were amended in August 2023 while the incidents respective to the cases occurred in Amy 2023: “The trial of the May 9 accused was conducted under the amended Army Act, and the limitations regarding the decision-making have already been explained in the case.”
Justice Mazhar said that fair trial was also mentioned in two judgements, while Justice Rizvi said that he wished to see the standard of the witnesses that was maintained: “This could have been avoided if joint trials were not carried out.”
Justice Mazhar doubted the practical implementation of the law despite being written on paper.
Thinking out loud, Justice Mandokhail said the question bothering him was whether a common man even falls under the Army discipline or not.
The remaining hearing regarding the case has been postponed until January 14 (Tuesday), and Harris has been directed to conclude his arguments as well. “Keep it brief on which cases were transferred to military courts and why, and if there are questions from the judges, we will address them at the end,” said Justice Aminuddin Khan.
