Supreme Court Hears Appeals Against Military Court Trials, Judges Question May 9 Riots and Legal Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court of Pakistan resumed its hearing on intra-court appeals challenging the nullification of military court trials for civilians. A seven-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, is reviewing the case, which has sparked intense legal and political debate across the country.
Judicial Observations on May 9 Riots
During the proceedings on Tuesday, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi made critical remarks regarding the violent events of May 9, when riots erupted across the country following the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. The judge lamented that acts such as arson, vandalism, and attacks on military installations were becoming “fashionable.”
Referring specifically to the attack on the Lahore Corps Commander House, Justice Rizvi questioned, “Has there ever been an attack on a Corps Commander House anywhere in the world?” He compared the incident to similar unrest in Bangladesh and Syria, underlining its significance as a serious national security issue.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel, however, took a broader view, noting that “breaking into the house of a civilian is also a crime.” His comment appeared to highlight concerns about selective enforcement of justice and the broader implications of military trials for civilians.
Debate Over Constitutional Jurisdiction
The defense counsel, Salman Akram Raja, argued that military trials of civilians are unconstitutional, asserting that no court could be established outside Clause 3 of Article 175 of the Constitution. He demanded that this clause should apply equally to military officers.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan responded by stating that if a case involving a military officer arose, the court would examine it accordingly. He further questioned why the Supreme Court should be involved in a matter that falls within the legislative domain, saying, “You are quoting the example of India where the law was amended through parliament. Why do you want to get the work that is supposed to be done by parliament done from the Supreme Court?”
Justice Mandokhel also stressed the importance of parliamentary oversight, emphasizing that matters concerning military trials and fundamental rights should be decided by elected representatives. “The matters being debated here are for parliament to decide,” he remarked. However, he also reaffirmed that the judiciary has a duty to protect fundamental rights, stating, “Someone must appear before us for violation of fundamental rights.”
A key concern raised during the hearing was whether military courts have the jurisdiction to address human rights violations. Justice Mandokhel questioned whether military tribunals were equipped to handle issues of constitutional and fundamental rights, a point that remains central to the legal debate.
Fear Among Families of the Accused
Salman Akram Raja also revealed that many families of the accused were afraid to challenge military court trials. He disclosed that he had been contacted by relatives of the accused, pleading with him not to pursue legal action. “Before filing a high court petition, I would receive calls from the families pleading, ‘Please don’t file the case, our house will not be saved,'” he shared with the court.
He also stated that while 10 accused individuals initially approached him to contest their trials, they later hesitated due to security concerns. This statement raised concerns about the intimidation and pressure allegedly faced by those challenging military trials.
Government’s Response and Adjournment
The additional attorney general assured the court that the government would provide further details on the jurisdiction and legality of military courts in the next hearing. Following this assurance, the Supreme Court adjourned the case until the next session, scheduled for Wednesday.
The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for Pakistan’s judicial and military systems, determining whether civilians can be tried in military courts and to what extent fundamental rights are protected under such proceedings.
