The Supreme Court’s seven-member constitutional bench, presided over by Justice Aminuddin, is currently considering intra-court appeals against civilian trials in military courts. The court asked why the attack on the Army Public School (APS) did not result in a military court trial, even though it involved the Army Act and a criminal conspiracy.

Justice Aminuddin stated, “We acknowledge the presence of military courts, but we need to assess the ‘patch’ that has been applied within the system.” Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Jamal Mandokhail were also on the bench.

The session focused on points made by Khawaja Haris, the Ministry of Defense’s attorney, who underlined that military courts are set up under the Army Act for crimes involving the armed services. He made it clear that the topic of debate is the trial of crimes under the Army Act, not civilian trials.

Concerning the intent behind crimes, Justice Mandokhail questioned if military trials would take the defendant’s motivations into account. Regardless of the individual’s intention, Khawaja Haris retorted that a military court would hear instances pertaining to the Army Act.

The 21st Amendment, which permitted military court proceedings, was passed under particular conditions, including the APS attack, the bench pointed out. Even after the horrific attack on an Army school, Justice Mandokhail said military tribunals were impossible without a constitutional amendment, citing the amendment.

In order to bolster his claims on the connection between crime and the Army Act, Khawaja Haris cited other rulings throughout the session. He emphasized that the type of offense determines the trial venue. The bench was eager to learn more about the process’s constitutional ramifications, though, and questioned why some attacks—such as those against military installations—were not subject to military tribunals under the current system.

Justice Mandokhail questioned why, even if the Army Act was in effect at the time of events like the APS assault, constitutional revisions were necessary for terrorism prosecutions to take place in military courts as the session went on. The court has postponed additional considerations until tomorrow, and the case continues to be a critical analysis of civilian justice versus military courts.

Today’s intra-court appeal against civilian military court trials was still pending, and Defense Ministry attorney Khawaja Haris will resume his arguments on Thursday.

The 21st Constitutional Amendment, the tragedy of the Army Public School attack, and the comments made by former Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani were all discussed at the hearing before the Supreme Court’s seven-member constitutional bench.

The presence of military courts is recognized, but the “patch on velvet” needs to be reviewed, said Justice Jamal Mandokhel.

After voting in support of the 21st Constitutional Amendment, Raza Rabbani shed tears, which are now part of history, according to Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi.

Khawaja Haris will continue to offer arguments at the intra-court appeal session tomorrow.

In order to counter terrorism, the 21st Amendment was passed after the APS assault. The bench, led by Justice Ameenuddin, cited the particular circumstances of this amendment.

This constitutional amendment allowed terrorists to be tried in military courts. Haris maintained that criminals implicated in events such as the May 9 assaults are subject to military trials.

The 21st Amendment was made for specific conditions, including the APS attack, where military trials became necessary. Haris emphasized that such trials, even without the amendment, could still take place under the military court system.

On Friday, officials were ordered by the Lahore High Court to turn Multan into a “green city” in order to lessen the consequences of environmental pollution.

On Tahir Jamal’s petition, LHC Justice Jawad Hassan rendered a thorough decision.

In order to have its own 2020 order put into effect, the petitioner had prayed before the court.

The responsible officials were instructed by the court to create a strong plan for turning Multan into a green city.

All departments were instructed to designate spokespersons by the LHC.

All parties involved in this matter must be consulted, according to the specified instructions.

A long-term strategy is needed to address Multan’s environmental contamination and declining AQI, according to Justice Jawad Hassan.

Every department was ordered by the court to provide a report on a monthly basis.

The written directive stated that Multan’s efforts to address the pollution were insufficient.

The director general of PHA Multan told the court that 14,825 trees were planted in the city in 2024.

According to the director general of PHA, DG Khan, 28,471 trees were planted in 2024.

10,560 trees were planted in private housing societies by the Multan Development Authority, it was further said.

The court ordered that the matter be heard on the first Tuesday of each month.

Owais Leghari, the federal minister of energy, disclosed that power rates are already falling as a result of renegotiations with independent power providers (IPPs), with more substantial relief possible.

After the agreements are finalized, the minister tells the National Assembly’s Power Committee that power rates could drop by Rs 10–12 per unit.

Leghari revealed that IPP-imposed capacity charges account for 75% of electricity expenses. “The public is being affected by the revision of these agreements,” he said, adding that agreements with 12 IPPs—including those that use bagasse—had been examined and negotiations for 15 more have been concluded.

“These changes will be approved by the cabinet next week, and within a month, decisions about captive power plants will be made,” he continued.

“The minister also announced that eight bagasse power plant adjustments have been approved and that five IPP contracts have been terminated. 16 more IPPs, including government-owned facilities, are now in talks. These renegotiations have already resulted in an electricity pricing reduction of Rs 4 per unit for domestic consumers.

Leghari addressed the issue of electricity theft in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and charged that the provincial government had not cooperated in spite of previous agreements. Before agreeing to cut off illicit connections, he disclosed that the KP chief minister had insisted on an unfettered supply of electricity to feeders with high rates of theft.

Leghari stated, “We carried out this agreement for 75 days, but the provincial administration did not take down the hooks, which cost our company an additional Rs 6 billion.”

Concerns about the continuous load shedding in KP were voiced by members of the load shedding and K-Electric tariff committee, which led to additional talks. “We do not believe that the proposed tariff is justified,” Leghari said, criticizing K-Electric’s multi-year tariff as a significant burden on consumers.

Walkout
At the meeting, committee members Shehryar Mehr, Sher Ali Arbab, and Junaid Akbar walked out in protest of a plan to discuss electricity supply company issues in Hyderabad and Sukkur behind closed doors.

In particular, by renegotiating contracts with IPPs and resolving inefficiencies, the energy minister reiterated the government’s commitment to reducing the financial burden on consumers through energy sector reforms.