SC judge questions why APS attackers were not tried in military courts

In the ongoing hearing of intra-court appeals against civilian trials in military courts, the seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Aminuddin, questioned why the attack on the Army Public School (APS), despite involving the Army Act and a criminal conspiracy, did not lead to a military court trial.

Justice Aminuddin remarked, “We acknowledge the presence of military courts, but we need to assess the ‘patch’ that has been applied within the system.” The bench also included Justices Jamal Mandokhail, Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan.

The hearing centered around arguments presented by the Ministry of Defence’s lawyer, Khawaja Haris, who emphasized that military courts are established under the Army Act for crimes linked to armed forces. He clarified that civilian trials are not under discussion; the matter at hand is the trial of crimes under the Army Act.

Justice Mandokhail raised concerns about the intent behind crimes, questioning whether the defendant’s motives would be considered in military trials. Khawaja Haris responded that in cases related to the Army Act, the trial would take place in a military court regardless of the intent of the individual.

The bench noted that the 21st Amendment, which legalized military court trials, was enacted under specific circumstances, such as the APS attack. Justice Mandokhail referred to the amendment, stating that even after the tragic attack on an Army school, military trials were not possible without a constitutional amendment.