ISLAMABAD (Dunya News) – The Supreme Court on Monday declared null and void the trial of civilians in military courts, Dunya News reported.
The court announced its reserved ruling with 4-1 majority after hearing the arguments.
In its short order, the apex court said trial of civilians could not be conducted in military courts and the Section 2 (D) (I) was unconstitutional. The top court accepted all the petitions against military court trials of civilians.
The Supreme Court also ordered sending cases of May 9 accused to civil courts.
It further said the trial of 103 accused charged with May 9 events could only be conducted in ciriminal courts. Justice Yahya Afridi differed with the majority opinion.
Earlier happenings
Earlier, a five-member bench, headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, started hearing the case at 11:30am for which notices had been issued to the parties concerned. Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha A. Malik are part of the bench.
The apex court heard the same case on Aug 3 last.
On July 21, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, Umar Ata Bandial, had issued directions that without informing the apex court, the civilians trials should not be initiated in the military courts and responsible persons would be summoned in case of order violation.
It may be recalled that 13 petitions had been filed against military courts.
The petitioners are former CJP Jawwad S. Khawaja, senior counsel Aitzaz Ahsan, Karamat Ali, Zaman Khan Vardag, Junaid Razzaq, the Supreme Court Bar Association, the PTI chief, Hafeezullah Khan Niazi, retired Lt Col Inamul Rahim, and Naeemullah Qureshi.
There are fresh applications requesting the court to urge the military authorities to expedite their trial under the Army Act. The applicants include Ijazul Haq, Muhammad Rashid, Abdul Sattar, Rashid Ali, Muhammad Abdullah, Umer Muhammad, Hassan Shakir and Faisal Irshad.
THE PAST
Law enforcement agencies took 102 people into custody following the violence on May 9 for attacking civilian as well as military installations, including the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, corps commander’s residence in Lahore, PAF Base Mianwali, and an ISI office in Faisalabad.
In their applications, the suspects requested the Supreme Court to implead them as a “necessary party in the case since all of them were involved in the May 9 incidents and were presently with the military authorities for the purposes of investigation and trial. Hence they were aggrieved party in the subject matter”. The applicants said they were never tortured by the military authorities during the course of investigations.
They contended that the military authorities should be asked by the court to try them under the provisions of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 and rules made thereunder so that justice be provided to them expeditiously.
The accused submitted that the applications before the commanding officer were moved of their free will, without any pressure and coercion. They pleaded that they were affected parties whose valuable rights were involved in the pending cases. If the applicants were not impleaded as parties in the case and may not be heard, they will suffer loss as they will be deprived of their valuable legal rights.
“Therefore, being aggrieved, the applicants must be considered necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the case for redressal of their grievances,” the applications added. The accused pleaded that the authorities concerned be directed that the trial of the applicants be kindly proceeded and concluded expeditiously to meet the ends of justice.
Earlier, the federal government in an application had told the Supreme Court that to safeguard the interests of the accused, it was imperative that their trials were conducted and concluded so that those who may merit acquittal could be acquitted and those who may merit minor sentences and have already served the time in custody could be released.
Moreover, the accused, if convicted, could avail remedies available under the law. The federal government had stated that the trials of these accused persons would remain subject to the outcome of the proceedings in the instant case.