Islamabad, February 14, 2025; Justice Musarrat Hilali of the Constitutional Bench on Thursday reminded that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) had supported the formation of military courts under the 21st Amendment following the 2014 Army Public School (APS) terrorist attack, which claimed the lives of 132 children.
“When in opposition now, you are saying what happened then was wrong, but the party earlier had supported the amendment,” remarked Justice Hilali.
She further stated that while PTI now emphasizes fundamental rights, its supporters “crossed all limits” on May 9, 2023, by storming military installations. She recalled personally witnessing such incidents in Peshawar.
Senior counsel Salman Akram Raja, representing the father of Arzam Junaid—a civilian sentenced to six years by a military court for his involvement in the May 9 violence—argued that Article 184(3) guarantees the accused the right to an independent court, due process, and a fair trial.
The case was heard by a seven-judge bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, which is reviewing intra-court appeals (ICAs) challenging the Supreme Court’s October 23, 2023, verdict that nullified the trial of civilians in military courts.
Justice Hilali reminded the counsel that some perpetrators of the APS attack had already been executed. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned what could be a graver crime than the APS attack or the Quetta bombing, which killed dozens of lawyers, arguing that such cases should have been tried in military courts.
The counsel pointed out that in the United Kingdom, court-martial cases are overseen by judges rather than military officers. However, Justice Aminuddin Khan responded that Pakistan’s legal framework should be analyzed within its own context rather than being compared to British law.
The debate also touched upon the F.B. Ali case, a historical military trial. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned why this case had not been challenged earlier if it was now being used as a precedent.
The counsel argued that restoring sections 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Pakistan Army Act—repealed by the October 23 verdict—would mean that civilians, including his client, could be subjected to military trials.
Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi raised the question of whether a judicial corps should exist within the army, while Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the military already has a Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch for legal matters.
The hearing was adjourned until Tuesday.
Source: Dawn News
