'How ATC is different from military court'

Justice Mandokhail says court can exercise its powers to deliver complete justice

Listen to article

ISLAMABAD:

Constitutional Bench member Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked on Tuesday that it was not necessary for the court to rely solely on the arguments of any party; rather, the court could exercise its powers to deliver "complete justice."

Sitting on a seven-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Mandokhail questioned why an anti-terrorism court was handling the trial in the case of the attack on Parliament, while a military court was tasked with the trial for the attack on military installations.

The court was hearing an intra-court appeal against a previous verdict by the apex court that barred military courts from trying civilians. During the hearing, the over-50-year-old FB Ali case was also referenced.

FB Ali, a retired brigadier, was tried and convicted by a military court in 1975 for attempting to overthrow then-Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. His appeal was dismissed by a five-member Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice Hamoodur Rahman.

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, sitting on the bench, observed that the FB Ali case was decided under the 1962 Constitution, meaning it could not be viewed through the lens of the 1973 Constitution.

Defence Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris noted that in the FB Ali case, it was stated that military trials were justified. Justice Mandokhail responded, pointing out that it was argued in the FB Ali case that Article 6(3)A of the 1962 Constitution had been discussed, though Haris replied that it had not been discussed in that case.

Justice Mandokhail then asked the lawyer to review the case again. Haris, reacting to the remarks, stated that he had come only to assist the court. Justice Mandokhail apologized if his words had offended Haris, who acknowledged that it was commendable the court was carefully considering the case.

Justice Mandokhail emphasized the significance of the case, stating, "The most respected institution for us is Parliament. If there is an attack on Parliament, the trial is held in the anti-terrorism court, but if the attack is on a military installation, why is the trial held in a military court? Under what principle is this distinction made?"

The hearing was adjourned until Wednesday morning, with Khawaja Haris set to resume his arguments.