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.