On Monday, the Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan’s constitutional bench rejected the federal government’s request to allow military courts to announce verdicts in cases involving civilians allegedly involved in the May 9, 2023, riots. These riots followed the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and saw violent attacks on military installations, with over 100 civilians facing trials for their alleged roles.
Background of the Case
The issue stems from a ruling last year by a five-member SC bench, which unanimously declared that civilians accused in such cases could not be tried in military courts. The ruling, issued by Justices Ijazul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, and Ayesha Malik, stated that the accused would have to face trial in regular criminal courts rather than military tribunals. However, on December 13, 2023, a different bench of the SC temporarily suspended this ruling in a 5-1 verdict, pending a final judgment on a series of intra-court appeals (ICAs).
In March 2024, the SC modified this suspension, allowing military courts to proceed with trials but prohibiting them from announcing verdicts until the ICAs were resolved. On Monday, the constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, resumed hearings of the ICAs and rejected the government’s request to allow military courts to pronounce judgments in cases where trials had already been completed.
The Hearing and Arguments
At the hearing, Senior Counsel Khwaja Ahmad Hosain, representing former Chief Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja (one of the petitioners), requested that the case not be heard until the challenges to the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which governed the bench’s formation, were decided. The court rejected this request and imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 on Khawaja for delaying tactics. Justice Khawaja’s lawyer argued that if the 26th Amendment was declared invalid, the bench’s decisions, including this case, would also become void. However, the judges swiftly dismissed these arguments, with Justice Mazhar commenting that the court’s decisions would remain protected even if the 26th Amendment was nullified.
Justice Mandokhail sharply criticized the counsel, saying, “You do not have a loved one in custody, which is why you want a delay.” Similarly, Justice Hilali emphasized the importance of considering the detainees’ situation, questioning the lawyer’s lack of empathy for those imprisoned under military trials.
The Additional Attorney General (AAG) also made a case for allowing military courts to announce verdicts in completed trials, but the bench remained firm in rejecting the request, stating that doing so would effectively resolve the fundamental issue of whether civilians could be tried in military courts.
Key Legal Questions and Court’s Ruling
The court focused on several key legal questions during the hearing. One concern was whether civilians could be tried in military courts, a point raised by the defence ministry’s lawyer, Khawaja Haris. However, the bench reaffirmed its earlier stance, noting that civilians, especially those not directly involved in military operations, should not be tried by military tribunals.
Justice Mandokhail also pointed out that crimes such as obstructing military personnel from their duties could still be tried in regular courts under civilian laws. The court’s decision emphasized that military courts should not have jurisdiction over civilians, reaffirming its constitutional stance on civilian rights.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s rejection of the federal government’s request to allow military courts to issue verdicts marks a significant reinforcement of the judiciary’s commitment to civilian rights and constitutional safeguards. Despite political pressures and the ongoing trials related to the May 9 riots, the court has maintained its stance that civilians should not face military trials. This ruling is a crucial moment in Pakistan’s legal landscape, underscoring the separation of military and civilian judicial powers and ensuring that trials of civilians adhere to constitutional norms.
As the ICAs continue, the case remains pivotal in shaping the future of military trials in Pakistan, particularly for civilians. The court’s clear message is that fundamental rights, including the right to a fair trial, must be protected under the country’s Constitution.