February 11, 2025
By Rana Malhi
ISLAMABAD
The matter of civilian trials in military courts continued as on Tuesday, February 11, a seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard an intra-court appeal against the issue.
The petitioner, Arzam Junaid’s counsel, Salman Akram Raja, began his arguments, stating that the main court ruling had clearly established that under Article 175(3) of the Constitution, no courts can be formed outside the judiciary’s jurisdiction. Junaid was one of those who had been convicted in the May 9 riots.
Raja emphasized that Pakistan has been governed under the 1973 Constitution, and all laws from the martial law eras were reviewed following the 18th Amendment. According to him, Article 175(3) should also apply to military officers.
May 9 Sentences
After the Supreme Court ruling on Dec 13, an ISPR announcement was issued, which conditionally allowed military courts to announce sentences in the cases of 85 civilians who were alleged to have attacked military sites including the Jinnah House in Lahore, General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi, and Pakistan Air Force Base in Mianwali.
In a previous report by Voicepk, two individuals Zahid Khan and Muhammad Ashiq Khan each received a four year prison term for their involvement in the attacks on the Multan Cantt checkpost and Jinnah House respectively. Khurram Shahzad was sentenced to three years for the Multan Cantt checkpost attack whereas Muhammad Bilawal, Syed Alam Shah, and Laiq Ahmed each received two years imprisonment for attacks on Jinnah House in Lahore, Punjab Regimental Centre in Mardan, and the ISI office in Faisalabad.
During the hearing, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked, “Why do you want the Supreme Court to do what Parliament is supposed to do? If a military officer is involved, we will examine that, but we must stay within the court’s jurisdiction.” He also noted that references were being made to India, where Parliament had amended the law.
In an interview in August 2024, Kamran Murtaza, a senator from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Pakistan (JUIF), had emphasized that civilians should not be tried in military courts, instead advocating for adherence to the ‘lawful process’, even in cases where civilians have committed violations.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned whether military courts have the authority to determine their own jurisdiction and whether any accused individuals had challenged the jurisdiction of military courts during their trials. In response, the Additional Attorney General assured the court that he would provide details.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar pointed out that in service-related matters, initial hearings are conducted at the departmental level. He asked whether any legislation had been enacted in response to the concerns highlighted in court rulings.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail commented, “Parliament seems to be preoccupied with other matters.”
May 9 events
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi referred to the events of May 9, stating that TV channels aired footage showing people storming Corps Commanders’ residences, vandalizing property, and even breaking television screens with sticks inside a house. He remarked, “Rioting and vandalism seem to have become a trend these days,” comparing the situation to unrest in Bangladesh and Syria.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail noted that entering a civilian’s home without permission is also a crime. Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi questioned, “Has there been any attack on Corps Commanders’ houses anywhere else in the world?”
Salman Akram Raja responded, “Yes, such incidents have occurred, and I will provide examples.”
During the hearing, Salman Akram Raja cited the decision to annul the Law Reforms Ordinance and referenced a significant ruling by the late Justice Waqar Seth of the Peshawar High Court, which was even mentioned in the International Court of Justice. However, the Supreme Court, in the case, later suspended that decision.
He further stated that during martial law periods, the Balochistan High Court had consistently ruled in favor of protecting civilians’ rights. He argued that no detailed judgment had been issued in this case, and protecting fundamental rights is the court’s responsibility.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that if fundamental rights are violated, any court has the authority to intervene. Salman Akram Raja informed the bench that he had prepared ten petitions on behalf of individuals sent to military courts.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked whether, even if the transfer of the accused to military courts was deemed unlawful, it had any relevance to Article 2(d). Salman Akram Raja responded that if Article 2(d) were removed, the entire framework would collapse.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail reiterated his inquiry about whether military courts have the authority to review their own jurisdiction. The Additional Attorney General assured the court that he would provide the necessary details.
After detailed arguments, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing till tomorrow and directed the parties to submit further evidence and legal clarifications for the next session.