Why do military courts not hear cases involving martyred soldiers? Justice Mandokhel asks

Justice Jamal Mandokhel of the Supreme Court expressed worry over the lack of military court trials for soldiers killed in acts of terrorism during a hearing on a matter involving military tribunals.

While troops give their lives every day, Justice Mandokhel underlined that the question of why these martyrs’ cases are not tried in military courts remains.

He also questioned which cases would be covered under Article 8, Clause 3 for military court trials, as well as whether someone with a certain belief could be tried in a military court.

The ruling to permit civilian trials in military courts is currently the subject of intra-court challenges before the seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court. The Ministry of Defense is represented by Khawaja Haris, who is making his case.

According to Khawaja Haris, the court’s ruling misconstrued Article 8, Clauses 3 and 5 of the Constitution. Stressing that the two provisions are separate and incompatible, he cited the FB Ali case, which established that civilians might be tried in military courts.

Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that although the nation recognizes the sacrifices made by soldiers, it is still unclear why these heroes’ cases aren’t being prosecuted in military courts.

Khawaja Haris retorted that the prior decision misrepresented the FB Ali case, which was different because the crime was committed while he was still in service, and the trial was held after Ali’s retirement while he was a civilian.

Justice Mandokhel retorted that the defendants in the May 9 event were not military personnel in the present case. Although the phrase “ex-servicemen” is now widely used, he pointed out that these people weren’t actually ex-servicemen.

The justice also raised concerns about the possibility of civilians being tried in military courts, namely if they could be treated similarly to those involved in tragedies such as the APS catastrophe. Justice Musarat Hilali reiterated this worry, pointing out that Pakistan’s Constitution is not suspended and questioning whether all citizens might receive the same treatment as in the APS case.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked about international standards for trials in military courts. Khawaja Haris responded by promising to use instances from throughout the world to support his claims.

Justice Mandokhel ended by raising concerns about which instances would be eligible for military court proceedings under Article 8, Clause 3, as well as whether people who hold a specific opinion may be tried in military tribunals.