The Supreme Court has temporarily halted the decision that annulled military trials for civilians, pending a final ruling.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court decided by a 5-1 majority to temporarily suspend its October 23 ruling that invalidated civilian trials within military courts associated with the May 9 riots.

Dec 13, 2023 - 15:51
 0  22
The Supreme Court has temporarily halted the decision that annulled military trials for civilians, pending a final ruling.

The decision to suspend the nullification of civilian trials in military courts, made on Wednesday, resulted from intra-court appeals filed by the federal and provincial governments, as well as the defense ministry. These appeals contested a previous ruling issued by Justice Ijazul Ahsan's bench in October. A six-member Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and including Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, heard the appeals. Justice Hilali dissented from the majority decision.

The original ruling nullifying the contentious trials was issued on October 23, with the court determining that the accused should face trial in criminal courts of competent jurisdiction under the nation’s ordinary or special law.

In the hearing, concerns were raised about the composition of the bench, particularly by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, who pointed out discrepancies in its formation. Former Chief Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, also a petitioner challenging the military trials, objected to the inclusion of Justice Sardar Tariq Masood in the bench, citing previous instances where both Justice Masood and Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa had recused themselves from a similar case.

The bench, led by Justice Masood, considered 17 intra-court appeals. The Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) requested the court to conditionally resume military trials for civilian suspects. Despite objections about the bench's constitution, Justice Masood declined to recuse himself, asserting that judges should decide on their participation individually.

The court agreed to the AGP’s request to begin hearing arguments on the appeals. The hearing included discussions on objections raised about the bench’s formation, with the AGP and counsels representing various parties presenting their arguments during the proceedings.

What's Your Reaction?

like

dislike

love

funny

angry

sad

wow