Supreme Court's seven-member constitutional bench has adjourned the hearing of an intra-court appeal regarding the trial of civilians in military courts until tomorrow.
During the proceedings, civil society’s lawyer, Faisal Siddiqi, argued that if his argument is accepted, not the law but the trials themselves would be declared null and void. He stated that cases in which sentences are still pending would be transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Court, while those where punishments have already been carried out would be considered a "past and closed transaction."
He further asserted that if the court exercises a power that it does not possess, its rulings would not hold. He cited a recent decision where the same constitutional bench annulled two orders in a tax case on similar grounds.
Justice Aminuddin Khan asked whether the argument of a "past and closed transaction" would lead to the validation of military trials.
The seven-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the case. Civil society’s lawyer, Faisal Siddiqi will continue his arguments tomorrow (Tuesday).
Justice Jamal stated that the procedure for registering complaints under the Official Secrets Act is clearly outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Siddiqi emphasized that under the Official Secrets Act, only the federal government can file a complaint, and private individuals are not allowed to do so.
The lawyer also noted that complaints under the Official Secrets Act can be filed under military rules as well.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that after Article 175, the issue of discretion no longer remains.
Siddiqi argued that if his argument is accepted, the trials would be annulled, not the law itself.
He further stated that if the trials are declared null and void, pending cases would be transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Court.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned where the trial would begin if the cases were transferred to regular courts.
Justice Aminuddin Khan again questioned whether the "past and closed transaction" argument would validate military trials.
The lawyer emphasized that courts must safeguard citizens' rights while also considering government interests.
He maintained that a court cannot exercise a power it does not legally have, otherwise, its rulings would not hold.
Siddiqi also pointed out that just days ago, the same constitutional bench annulled two tax-related orders based on similar reasoning.
Addressing a previous objection, Siddiqi explained that Article 245 was in effect when the petitions were filed, preventing them from being taken to the High Court.
Justice Aminuddin noted that Article 245 was not in place on May 9 but was imposed later.
Faisal Siddiqi confirmed that by the time the petitions were filed, Article 245 had already been enforced.
Justice Jamal inquired where a case would be tried if the military had been called in by the civilian government and an attack occurred.
Siddiqi responded that if an attack occurred on a military convoy, the trial would take place in the Anti-Terrorism Court.
