ISLAMABAD: Hearing the intra-court appeals concerning civilians' trials in the military courts, the Supreme Court has questioned what punishment an army officer would face if found involved in suspending the country's Constitution. The question was raised by Justice Musarrat Hilali who is part of the top court's constitutional bench headed by Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan on Monday. Khawaja Haris, counsel for the Ministry of Defence, presented arguments, saying that the Supreme Court had also declared Section 59(4) of the Army Act null and void. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said that the Army Act mentions several crimes, all of which apply to military officers. To this, Haris argued that civilians’ trials fall under Section 31-D of the Army Act, which has constitutional recognition for military courts. However, Justice Mandokhail clarified that Section 31-D relates to encouraging soldiers against performing their duties, and the issue to be addressed is who should face trial in military courts. Justice Hilali also pointed out that the Constitution recognises many tribunals, and the focus should be on which cases can be heard where and how. Justice Mandokhail further questioned whether a civilian's military trial was considered a court martial. In response, Haris confirmed that military courts conduct court martials. Justice Hilali then asked whether there is a punishment for an army officer who suspends the Constitution, querying if the Army Act specifies a penalty for such an act. Haris responded that Article 6 of the Constitution prescribes punishment for suspending the Constitution, as the Constitution prevails over all laws, while the Army Act also addresses violations of the oath. Justice Mandokhail further raised another question: If the judiciary has validated martial law, do judges who endorse unconstitutional actions also fall under the scope of Article 6? Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar mentioned the case of Pervez Musharraf, where judges were initially named in the treason trial but were later excluded. Justice Mandokhail also inquired about the implications of violating the law of evidence in military trials. Justice Azhar asked how they could assess if evidence rules had been violated without reviewing the trial records. Haris responded that the SC can review cases where legal requirements are not met. Additionally, Justice Azhar expressed a desire to understand the standards of evidence in military trials, asking whether witnesses in field court martial were cross-examined and whether defence witnesses had the right to appear. To this, Haris replied that an appeal against the apex court's ruling under Article 184(3) was pending, and the court could not review the trial or examine evidence standards without considering its jurisdiction. Justice Azhar agreed that a review might still be possible. Justice Mandokhail then mentioned that civilians were initially tried in civilian courts under the Official Secrets Act. Justice Azhar added that the Official Secrets Act was amended on August 11, 2023, while the incident occurred in May 2023, questioning whether the law could be applied retrospectively. Harris confirmed that the amendment applied retrospectively. Justice Amin-Ud-Din advised Haris to conclude his arguments by the following day, outlining which cases had been transferred to military courts and why, and to keep it concise. The apex court then adjourned the hearing on the appeal against civilians being tried in military courts till Tuesday.