In a landmark judgment that has sparked national and international debate, Pakistan’s Supreme Court ruled the trial of civilians in military courts as unconstitutional. The decision, initially announced in October 2023 and suspended in December 2023 pending final adjudication, marks a significant moment in the country’s constitutional and judicial history. It raises profound questions about the balance between national security and civil liberties, particularly in the context of events surrounding the May 9, 2023 protests.
Background: The May 9 Protests and Subsequent Crackdown
The issue of civilian trials in military courts gained momentum after the May 9, 2023, riots, which followed the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. Supporters of Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party allegedly attacked military installations, including the Corps Commander’s residence in Lahore. In response, the government announced that those responsible for acts of violence against military property would be tried under the Pakistan Army Act of 1952.
This decision was met with considerable criticism from civil rights organizations, political analysts, and opposition leaders. Critics argued that trying civilians in military courts, especially in a democratic setup, undermines the rights to a fair trial and due process as guaranteed by Pakistan’s Constitution and international human rights obligations.
Supreme Court’s Verdict: Upholding Constitutional Values
On October 23, 2023, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court delivered a historic verdict, declaring that civilians could not be tried under military laws. The judgment struck down certain provisions of the Pakistan Army Act that allowed for such trials—specifically Sections 2(1)(d) and 59(4). The court held that these provisions violated the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, particularly the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A.
The court ordered that all civilian cases currently being heard by military courts be transferred to regular criminal courts operating under Pakistan’s civilian judicial system. Legal experts hailed the decision as a win for democracy and constitutional supremacy.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan, who authored the majority opinion, emphasized that while national security is a legitimate concern, it cannot justify suspending basic civil liberties. The judgment reaffirmed the independence of the judiciary and underscored that military justice is meant strictly for members of the armed forces, not for civilians, regardless of the gravity of the offense.
Government’s Response and Subsequent Suspension of the Verdict
In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the federal government filed a review petition seeking to suspend the implementation of the judgment. On December 13, 2023, the Supreme Court temporarily suspended its own ruling, allowing military trials of civilians to continue until a final decision is made.
This suspension attracted strong criticism from civil society, legal experts, and human rights organizations. Many questioned whether the temporary suspension undermined the authority of the original verdict. Critics warned that this created a legal grey area and risked setting a dangerous precedent for future governance and judicial integrity.
Implications for Civil Liberties and Democracy
The court’s original ruling and its temporary suspension have far-reaching implications for Pakistan’s democratic development. On one hand, the initial decision was seen as a reassertion of civilian supremacy and an attempt to restore trust in the judicial process. On the other hand, the suspension highlighted the ongoing tug-of-war between civilian institutions and the powerful military establishment.
Legal scholars argue that civilian trials in military courts compromise transparency and due process. Military trials are conducted behind closed doors, often without access to independent legal representation, and lack the safeguards of civilian judicial proceedings. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly urged the Pakistani government to refrain from using military courts for civilians, labeling it a regressive step.
Public and Political Reactions
The Supreme Court’s decision generated mixed reactions across the political spectrum. Members of the PTI celebrated the judgment, claiming vindication in the face of what they describe as political victimization. Opposition parties such as the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), while supportive of civilian supremacy, remained cautious in their criticism of military courts, mindful of their own political alignments.
Public opinion has been similarly divided. While many Pakistanis welcome any decision that reinforces constitutional rights and judicial independence, others—particularly those concerned with security and stability—believe the military’s involvement in such trials may be necessary in exceptional circumstances.
Conclusion: A Moment of Reckoning
The Supreme Court’s ruling on military trials of civilians represents a critical juncture in Pakistan’s legal and democratic trajectory. While the suspension of the verdict has delayed immediate reform, the case continues to spotlight the need for clear legal boundaries and institutional accountability.
As the matter awaits final resolution, the decision will likely shape future interpretations of civil-military relations, the role of judiciary in checking executive and military power, and the broader debate around national security versus individual rights. Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: the eyes of the nation—and the world—remain fixed on Pakistan’s highest court as it navigates one of the most consequential constitutional challenges in recent memory.
Reference: سویلنز کا فوجی عدالتوں میں ٹرائل کالعدم قرار:سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ
