The Supreme Court’s seven-member constitutional bench postponed the hearing on intra-court challenges against the nullification of civilian proceedings in military courts until tomorrow.

Under the leadership of Justice Aminuddin Khan, the bench consists of Justices Shahid Bilal Hassan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Mussarat Hilali, Jamal Mandokhel, and Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

Khawaja Haris, the Defence Ministry’s attorney, described the process for trials and investigations in military courts throughout the hearing.

He told the court that in military trials, charges are made against the accused and then an investigation is carried out. The accused is shown witnesses and given the chance to question them in cross-examination. Haris said, “The kind of transparent investigation conducted in the army cannot be seen anywhere else.”

According to Khawaja Haris, who supported the military court procedures, the accused is asked if he has any objections to a judge at the start of a court martial, and judgements are taken by a majority. Justice Mussarat Hilali asked if a uniformed military commander could be an unbiased judge, saying, “These days, people are also questioning the judges. How is it possible for a uniformed military officer to be an unbiased judge?

Khawaja Haris responded, “Even judges are wearing uniforms,” which caused the courtroom to erupt in laughter. In response, Justice Mandokhel said, “You mean that the black and khaki uniforms are the same? Wouldn’t an impartial body be preferable for implementation, regardless of how good the process is?”

He added that the accused frequently express dissatisfaction with the trials that their accusers have performed.

The counsel for the Defence Ministry briefed the court on the Army Act’s charge-frame procedure and the police FIA. He clarified that following the framing of a charge, the commanding officer carries out an inquiry, which is predicated on the charge. In response to Justice Jamal Mandokhel’s inquiry on whether the charge frame is created during the trial as well, Haris explained that it is distinct and is created during the trial.

Concerning the application of military law to civilians, Justice Mussarat Hilali posed the question, “No matter how strict this law is, will it apply to civilians?” “A charge must be framed; one cannot be considered in violation of the Army Act unless there is an allegation,” Justice Jamal Mandokhel continued.

The bench was suspicious about the fairness of military trials for civilians in spite of these guarantees. Justice Jamal Mandokhel restated, “Wouldn’t it be better to have an independent body for implementation, regardless of how good the procedure is?”

After declaring that the constitutional bench would only consider cases pertaining to military courts tomorrow, Justice Aminuddin Khan adjourned the meeting.