Supreme Court Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar has stated that neither the armed forces nor military courts are part of the judiciary, and no judicial verdict has classified military courts as such.
His remarks came during a hearing on Wednesday by a seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, regarding the federal government and defence ministry’s petitions against the military trial of civilians. The bench also included Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan.
During the proceedings, Advocate Abid Zuberi, representing former Supreme Court Bar Council office bearers, argued that FB Ali, a hero of the 1965 war, was subjected to a military trial under Gen Ziaul Haq on accusations of office misuse post-retirement. He questioned how a retired officer could misuse an official position. He noted that Gen Zia later released FB Ali in 1978.
Justice Mandokhail remarked that the military’s primary duty is to defend the nation. Justice Mazhar pointed out concerns regarding military courts, stating that objections have been raised about their impartiality and the legal expertise of those conducting trials.
When asked if military courts were part of the judiciary, Advocate Zuberi asserted that they were under the executive branch, emphasizing that the army’s role is to defend the country, not conduct judicial proceedings.
Justice Mazhar questioned whether military courts should be recognized as part of the judiciary, stressing that no judicial ruling has classified them as such. Justice Mandokhail further clarified that while the term “court martial” appears in legal statutes, “military court” does not.
Advocate Zuberi contended that only civilians serving in the army can be tried in military courts. He argued that Articles 10A and 4 of the Constitution make civilian court-martial unconstitutional.
Following the arguments, the court adjourned the hearing until Thursday.
