Supreme Court resumed hearing intra-court appeals against military trials of civilians, with strong remarks from the bench questioning the shifting stances of political parties on the issue.

During the proceedings, Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked, “On May 9, limits were crossed. Now you remember fundamental rights?” She criticized the petitioners, noting that their party had supported the establishment of military courts under the 21st Constitutional Amendment but now opposes them while in the opposition.

Senior lawyer Salman Akram Raja, while presenting his arguments, insisted that the court-martial of civilians is not permissible under any circumstances. He cited Indian and British laws as examples, but Justice Aminuddin Khan interrupted, stating, “We need to examine our own laws. You are wasting time.”

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar also challenged Raja’s argument, saying, “British laws relate to military discipline. The current case involves crimes committed by civilians, so how can foreign laws be applied here?” Justice Hilali added that if legal provisions are to be reviewed, international laws should also be considered.

During the hearing, Salman Akram Raja referred to the cases against himself, stating, “I have been accused of conspiring to kill Rangers personnel along with the PTI founder. If these legal provisions are restored, I may have to appear before a military officer.”

Justice Mazhar assured that not every accused person is automatically sent for a military trial, adding that even under a regular FIR, arrests are made on mere allegations. He also clarified that the original Official Secrets Act only covered espionage, but recent amendments have included new offenses.

Raja also referenced the F.B. Ali case, arguing that if Article 175(3) had been in place at the time, the trial would not have gone to a military court. However, Justice Aminuddin countered, stating that the main ruling did not invalidate the F.B. Ali case, and no judicial decision has ever declared it void.

The court adjourned the hearing, with further arguments expected in the next session.