Justice Aminuddin Khan stated on Wednesday that the Supreme Court is not under trial and must decide cases according to the constitution and law.

A seven-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Khan and including Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan, is hearing intra-court appeals against the trial of civilians in military courts.

At the outset, Latif Khosa, counsel for Aitzaz Ahsan, sought permission to present arguments instead of Uzair Bhandari, which Justice Khan allowed.

During the proceedings, Justice Khan noted that Aitzaz Ahsan had objected to arguments presented by Salman Akram Raja, as Raja also represents him. Justice Mazhar suggested that Ahsan’s objection was related to Article 63A, to which Raja clarified he had only disagreed with one paragraph and stood by his previous arguments.

Justice Afghan advised against being influenced by social media, while Justice Mandokhail urged the media to report responsibly. Justice Hilali also expressed concerns about false reports but refrained from responding due to her judicial position.

Advocate Khosa argued that the entire nation is watching the case and that the Supreme Court is under trial, to which Justice Khan responded that the court is not on trial. Khosa emphasized that judicial decisions serve as precedents, and Justice Mandokhail asked him to focus on the legal status of Section 2D.

Justice Khan instructed Khosa to present his arguments independently before linking them to the May 9 and 10 incidents. Khosa contended that fundamental rights are protected under the constitution and that Section 2D is unconstitutional. He also criticized the historical role of military courts, citing the Hamoodur Rehman Commission report, which linked military interventions to public resentment.

Justice Mandokhail asked whether the constitution prohibits making new laws, to which Khosa responded that military courts required the 21st Amendment, emphasizing that civilians should not be tried in military courts. He argued that such trials lack independence, which is why a judicial commission was sought for the May 9 incidents.

Justice Khan noted that Khawaja Haris had defended military courts as having a transparent trial process. Justice Mandokhail reminded Khosa of his political career and questioned why he had not opposed Section 2D while holding various positions. Justice Hilali pointed out the inconsistency between Khosa’s parliamentary stance and court arguments, asserting that military courts were not responsible for the fall of Dhaka.

Khosa insisted on a strong, publicly supported army and urged the judiciary to end military trials. He alleged that the 26th Amendment was passed under coercion and that judges should restore the military’s respect by ruling against such trials.

Justice Hilali asked whether any lawmakers resigned in protest of the 26th Amendment, to which Khosa cited Akhtar Mengal’s resignation. Justice Mazhar questioned why military courts were not voided under the 21st Amendment, and Khosa replied that they were retained due to the prevailing war-like situation.

Justice Mandokhail asked whether military courts had effectively eliminated terrorism, and Khosa argued that they had not, citing ongoing security incidents. He criticized provincialism, blaming the 18th Amendment for worsening divisions, and called for the military to combat terrorism within constitutional limits.

Justice Hilali and Justice Mandokhail urged Khosa to raise these issues in parliament, but Khosa claimed his microphone is often turned off when he speaks. He accused lawmakers of passing amendments only to later seek judicial intervention to nullify them.

Justice Mandokhail asked whether Khosa had voted against the amendment, to which Khosa responded that PTI had abstained. The justice remarked that it was Khosa’s responsibility to oppose it in parliament.

The hearing was adjourned until the next day.