Civilian trials in military courts, Justice Jamal, Justice Naeem Akhtar issued a controversial verdict

Islam Abad (94 news) The Supreme Court of Pakistan issued a minority detailed decision to invalidate the court martial of civilians. Of the Supreme Court 7 A one-member constitution bench upheld the court-martial of the civilian by a majority of five to two.

The minority judgment said that the perception has been created that the civil courts have failed to deal with a serious problem like terrorism. In a minority judgment, the Supreme Court has said that the impression was given that the issue could only be resolved through court martial, but the fact is that court martial can only be held against persons who are under the Pakistan Army Act, courts martial are established only to prosecute persons who are guilty of military offenses or general offences. The Supreme Court has said in a minority decision that military courts do not have the authority to hear cases of terrorism or other criminal nature. In 2015, there was a war situation in the country, the legislative body decided to extend the jurisdiction of the court martial to cases of terrorism.

It has been said in the minority decision that the legislature for this purpose in 2015 21 The 10th constitutional amendment was introduced, the Pakistan Army Act was amended and the court-martial was authorized for a specific period, i.e. till 2019. The Supreme Court in a minority judgment has said that terrorism cases are not tried in courts martial in any country in the world, Supreme Court regularly reviews the decisions of criminal courts, the current appeals have been filed by the federal government, Punjab government and Balochistan government, unfortunately it seems that these governments have lost confidence in the criminal courts. In the minority judgment, the Supreme Court says that these elected governments distrusted the criminal courts instead of reforming the investigation system free from political influence, and by distrusting the criminal courts, an unnecessary burden was placed on the court martial, military officers do not have the judicial experience to hear criminal cases and decide harsh punishments.

The court has said in the minority decision that the court martial cannot be considered equal to those judicial officers who are experts in the law, the governments are trying to achieve their goals through the court martial instead of eliminating the causes of terrorism, expecting the criminal courts to punish someone without evidence will be a violation of the requirements of the law, if the prosecution does not have evidence, then how can the court punish?

The Supreme Court has said in a minority decision that if the cases are investigated properly and the evidence is strong, then it is not possible for the criminal to avoid punishment. 9 The sentences handed down to those involved in the events of May 2023 are outside the jurisdiction. 9 The sentences awarded to the persons involved in the events of May 2023 are declared null and void.