ISLAMABAD, March 3 (Alliance News): The Supreme Court on Monday raised key legal questions regarding the stage at which the trials of civilians would resume if their cases were transferred from military courts to anti-terrorism courts (ATC).
During the hearing of intra-court appeals against military trials of civilians, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired whether the cases would start afresh or continue based on evidence recorded during military proceedings.
A constitutional bench led by Justice Amin Uddin Khan, including Justices Mazhar, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Hassan Azhar Naqvi, and Naeem Afghan, heard arguments from civil society lawyer Faisal Siddiqi.
Siddiqi contended that the central issue was not how the 105 suspects were selected for military trials but whether such trials were legally permissible.
Justice Amin noted that the transfer of suspects was a matter of record and asked if Section 94 of the Army Act had been challenged. Siddiqi responded that the provision, granting unlimited discretionary power for custody transfers, was indeed being contested.
Justice Naqvi questioned whether police investigations were slower compared to military trials and whether sufficient evidence existed at the time of custody transfer. Siddiqi argued that the issue was not the presence of evidence but the absolute authority to transfer suspects.
Justice Mandokhail further inquired whether an ATC had the authority to reject a handover request, to which Siddiqi confirmed that it did. Meanwhile, Justice Mazhar questioned whether suspects had been notified before a commanding officer’s handover request was decided.
Justice Afghan intervened, pointing out that the requests were based on offenses under the Official Secrets Act. Justice Mandokhail noted that complaints under this act must follow a legal process requiring a magistrate’s involvement.
Siddiqi maintained that only the federal government, not private individuals, could lodge complaints under the Official Secrets Act. He also challenged the validity of invoking Article 245 of the Constitution for military trials, arguing that it was enforced after May 9.
Following these discussions, the court adjourned the hearing until tomorrow.
