- FIR mandatory before arrests, says SC judge.
- Accused status comes after formal charge.
- Military courts not under Article 175: Haris.
ISLAMABAD: The Army Act will be applied if a civilian damages a military installation or steals military property, said Khawaja Haris, the counsel representing the Ministry of Defence during proceedings in the Supreme Court on Monday.
He made these remarks while continuing his rebuttal in the case against the annulment of civilian trials in military courts.
A seven-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, is hearing the case. Other members of the bench include justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Musarrat Hilali, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal.
Haris argued that under the Pakistan Army Act, armed forces are empowered to arrest civilians involved in crimes such as attacking military installations or stealing military property.
However, Mazhar remarked that an FIR is a legal prerequisite for any arrest. Justice Rizvi added that any arrested individual must be presented before the relevant magistrate.
Justice Mandokhail questioned the procedural aspects of such cases: “How is the case registered? Who investigates it? What is the process? We want to understand.”
He further said that a person only becomes an accused under Section 2(d) of the Army Act once they have been indicted. Haris countered that the Constitution itself grants a distinct jurisdiction for court martial proceedings and cited previous rulings, including those by former chief justice Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, to reinforce his argument.
The defence counsel added that there were numerous court judgements regarding court martials.
Haris further stated that it was up to lawmakers to decide where a trial should take place.
However, Justice Mandokhail said the court’s role is to assess if the trial is constitutional.
He further emphasised that it is not for the judiciary to consider whether a verdict would reduce or increase terrorism: “Controlling terrorism is the parliament’s job, not the court’s.”
The defence counsel also maintained that military courts do not fall under Article 175 of the Constitution, prompting Justice Mandokhail to ask under which constitutional provision they operate.
The hearing on the appeals against the annulment of civilian trials in military courts was adjourned until Tuesday (tomorrow), with Khawaja Harris scheduled to continue his rebuttal.
