Islamabad: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has remarked on the legal and constitutional complications surrounding the trial of civilians in military courts for alleged involvement in the May 9 attacks.
A seven-member bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the appeals challenging the military trial process.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel emphasized that the crimes committed during the May 9 events cannot be denied but the main issue is the jurisdiction of the trial.
Justice Mandukhel remarked that the question is not whether a crime has been committed or not, where should the trial be held?
The debate centered on the 21st Amendment, which established the framework for military courts.
Justice Mandukhel pointed out that the amendment specifically prohibits the trial of political parties in military courts, raising concerns about the applicability of the Army Act to civilians.
Defending the government’s stand, Defense Ministry counsel Khawaja Haris argued that the Army Act and its rules ensure a fair trial process.
He cited past cases, including the Supreme Court’s Liaquat Hussain judgment, to justify the use of military courts.
However, the bench sought clarification as to whether it was in accordance with constitutional principles.
Justice Musrat Hilali highlighted the public fear and chaos during the events of May 9, which included arson, looting and attacks on government property.
He questioned the outcome of trials for crimes such as theft and damage to property that had nothing to do with military installations.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi drew attention to the severity of the attacks by referring to the burning of the Lahore Corps Commander’s residence and coordinated attacks in several cities.
Citing evidence presented by the Ministry of Defence, including photographs of the devastation, he said these were not ordinary protests but targeted attacks against state security.
The defense ministry argued that military courts focus on cases of violence against sensitive and restricted areas.
However, Justice Rizvi questioned whether the citizens involved were given their full constitutional rights, including access to the appeal process.
Justice Ayesha Malik expressed reservations over certain provisions of the Army Act, such as Sections 2(1)(d)(1) and 2(1)(d)(2), arguing that it may conflict with the principles of fair trial. are
He questioned whether citizens suing under these sections were given adequate notice and representation.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar raised additional questions on the dual jurisdiction of military and civilian courts.
He inquired whether the crimes of both military personnel and civilians are tried separately and whether the evidence provided differentiates between criminal intent and political dissension.
Khawaja Haris reiterated that the May 9 events were not mere protests but deliberate attempts to undermine state security.
“Political activities have their limits. When state property is attacked, it is not politics but a criminal offence,” he argued.
The Ministry of Defense also presented video evidence of armed civilians attacking military positions.
Justice Hasan Rizvi inquired whether the evidence showed that military personnel were killed or injured, to which Haris replied in the affirmative, saying that the armed attacks caused injuries and damage.
The bench appeared divided on the wider implications of the military trials. Justice Mandukhel questioned why attacks on institutions like Parliament were not prosecuted in military courts, stressing consistency in the application of the law.
The court adjourned the hearing till Monday for further discussion.
Justice Aminuddin Khan assured that the bench would devote a full day to the case, Khawaja Haris requested an extra day for preparation.
