Crimes under the Army Act solely apply to military people, said Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel on Monday.

His statement was made before the Supreme Court’s intra-court appeal hearing against the trial of civilians in military courts.

A seven-member constitutional panel, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, is considering the matter. Jamal Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan are among the justices on the bench.

Justice Khan instructed Khawaja Haris, the Ministry of Defense’s attorney, to wrap up the arguments by tomorrow.

Advocate Haris contended that the Supreme Court had ruled that Section 59 of the Army Act (4) was unconstitutional. In response, Justice Mandokhel noted that the Army Act lists numerous crimes and that all crimes will be applicable to military members under the Act.

According to the attorney, the Army Act will be analyzed in light of Official Secrets Act sections 2D(1) and 2D(2), and Section 31D of the Army Act governs civilian trials.

Section 31D dealt with persuading soldiers to abstain from their duty, according to Justice Mandokhel. “It is unclear whose case will be heard by military courts.”

“The Constitution also validates many tribunals,” said Justice Hilali. “The important thing is to decide which cases should be heard where and how.”

Justice Mandokhel asked him if a court martial will be used to try civilians in military courts. “Trial by military courts is court martial,” advocate Haris retorted.

Justice Hilali asked him if the Army Act had any penalties for violating the Constitution if an army officer did so.

Khawaja Haris retorted that the crime is punishable under Article 6. All laws are subordinate to Article 6. Oath violations are likewise punishable under the Army Act.

According to Justice Mandokhel, the judiciary has already upheld martial law; the question now is whether Article 6 applies to those justices.

The judges’ names were first mentioned in the Pervez Musharraf case, but they were later removed from the treason trial, according to Justice Mazhar.

Justice Rizvi asked if changes made to certain parts of the Army Act in August 2023 might be applied retroactively to the May 2023 occurrences. He inquired about the possibility of using the modified Army Act to try the defendants in the May 9 occurrences.

Advocate Haris retorted that hearings were held and that the accused had selected counsel. It had previously been stated that the court had reserved decisions in certain matters and proclaimed judgment in others, Justice Rizvi said.

Justice Mazhar stated that he was curious about the classification of the witnesses. “A joint trial should not have taken place,” he noted. Written provisions indeed exist; however, it is unclear if they have been put into practice.

Since the start of the hearing, Justice Mandokhel noted, he had been worried about whether or not the average person is subject to army discipline.

Afterwards, the Supreme Court postponed the hearing until Tuesday.