SC considers whether a constitutional change is necessary for terrorist prosecutions in military courts.

On Wednesday, the seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, began hearing arguments on an intra-court appeal contesting the prosecutions of civilians in military courts.

Jamal Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Musarrat Hilali, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, and Shahid Bilal were among the justices on the bench.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked during the hearings why the trial of terrorists in military courts required a constitutional amendment.

Defense Ministry attorney Khawaja Haris stated at the outset of his arguments that the trial forum was defined by the type of offense. Military tribunals would hear the case if the civilian’s offense was connected to the military.

Justice Mandokhail stated that whether the crime was committed against the interests of the country or not was a critical consideration. Khawaja Haris retorted that intent is assessed at the trial and is determined by the evidence.

Justice Mandokhail asked why events such as the attacks on the GHQ and Karachi Air Base were not handled in military courts while discussing historical instances. Haris made reference to the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, which broadened the jurisdiction of military courts to encompass offenses other than those typically dealt with by the military.

During the attack on the Army Public School (APS) and other occurrences, Haris insisted that the Army Act and the Official Secrets Act were already in effect, claiming that revisions were made to address more serious crimes.

The hearing was postponed till Thursday by the court, and Khawaja Haris is anticipated to present more arguments.