The Ministry of Defence told the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench (CB) on Thursday that legislation falls exclusively under the domain of Parliament, which also determines the jurisdiction and applicability of laws.
Advocate Khwaja Haris, representing the ministry, argued this during his rebuttal in the Intra-Court Appeals (ICA) against the Supreme Court’s previous ruling. The court had earlier annulled the military trials of civilians involved in the May 9 incidents and declared certain sections of the Army Act 1952 unconstitutional.
A seven-member CB, headed by Justice Aminud Din Khan, is hearing the ICAs filed by the federal government and others. The bench also includes Justices Jamal Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hasan.
During the proceedings, Justice Mandokhail noted that the primary purpose of the Army Act is to maintain discipline within the armed forces. Khwaja Haris maintained that Parliament alone has the authority to legislate and determine the scope of a law’s application. However, Justice Mandokhail emphasised that the Constitution stands above Parliament and that all legislative actions must align with it.
Haris responded by arguing that laws must be assessed within the broader constitutional framework rather than through isolated clauses. When asked whether Parliament could expand the jurisdiction of the Army Act, he stated that the matter was not currently before the court. Justice Mandokhail acknowledged agreement on at least Article 8(5) of the Constitution.
Justice Musarrat Hilali criticised the lengthy proceedings, pointing out that the core question—whether military courts conform to Article 175 of the Constitution—remains unresolved despite over a year of arguments. Justice Khan remarked that the Supreme Court’s prior ruling on Section 2(1)(d) of the Army Act might be incorrect.
Khwaja Haris stated that he would further address Article 8 of the Constitution and clarify the legality of civilian trials in military courts in his continued arguments.
At the end of the session, Justice Khan announced that members of the CB would be attending cases in different Supreme Court registries, leading to an adjournment of the hearing until April 7 due to judges’ unavailability.