ISLAMABAD, July 18, 2023: The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the government plea to form a full court bench to hear a set of petitions challenging the trial of civilians in military courts, citing the non-availability of judges as the reason.
Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, who is heading a six-member bench, said formation of a full court bench wasn’t possible because three judges expressed their inability to hear the matter while some others, including Justice Athar Minallah, were currently abroad.
He told Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan that the court would give him ample time to present his case as the petitioners’ lawyers had already completed their arguments.
The chief justice remarked that everyone shared the opinion that the May 9 events were very serious in their nature, but added that all the people in the country were worried how the civilians would be treated during the harsh military trial proceedings.
Latif Khosa – one of the counsels representing the petitioners – had stated at the very beginning the accused should be tried in anti-terrorism courts, the chief justice observed and asked the attorney general that he would now have to answer all the questions.
Adjourning the hearing till Wednesday, Chief Justice Bandial, who was addressing the attorney general, remarked that he should have more consultations and they (the judges) too would have the same.
Other members of the six-member bench are: Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik.
Petitions Aren’t Maintainable
A day earlier (Monday), the government again requested the Supreme Court to form a full bench to hear the matter concerning the military trial of those in the May 9 violence and contended that the petitions against the move were not maintainable.
In a 31-page reply submitted with the apex court, the government said the May 9 events were targeted attacks on military installations and establishments across the country in an organized and coordinated manner. The attacks were neither localized nor isolated, it added.
Describing the violence against as a direct attack on the national security of Pakistan, the reply read that Pakistan’s constitutional framework allowed to hold trial of the perpetrators of such vandalism and violence under the provisions of the Army Act as a deterrence.
Both the Army Act and the Official Secret Act had been part of the Constitution and were never challenged, the document read, the government said.
Therefore, the government is of the opinion that apex court should not hear the matter directly as the steps taken under the Army Act and the Official Secret Act are legal and constitutional in their nature.
Citing that Justice Yahya Afridi has already given his opinion that the matter should be placed before a full court, the government in its reply also noted that the right to move the high court concerned enjoyed by the accused could be affected if the Supreme Court opted to reject the petitions.