ISLAMABAD, May, 07 The Supreme Court of Pakistan’s constitutional
bench on Wednesday upheld the trial of civilians in military courts as
lawful.
A seven-member constitutional bench accepted the government’s
intra-court appeals against the decision regarding the trial of
civilians in military courts.
The judges who approved the appeals include Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan,
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Shahid Bilal, Justice Musarrat
Hilali, and Justice Hasan Rizvi, while Justice Naeem-ud-Din Afghan and
Justice Jamal Mandokhail dissented from the decision.
The court also reinstated the three previously annulled sections of the
Army Act: 2(1)(d), 2(d)(ii), and 59(4).
The SC stated that a short verdict has been issued today, while a
detailed judgment will be released later.
The decision noted that the matter of granting the right to appeal
against military court verdicts has been referred to the government. The
government has been directed to legislate on granting the right of
appeal within 45 days. Amendments should be made to the Army Act to
provide the right of appeal in the High Court.
The court on Monday reserved its verdict on intra-court appeals
challenging the nullification of military trials for civilians involved
in the May 9 riots.
A seven-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, concluded hearings
after extensive arguments by Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, who
described the May 9 incidents as deliberate attacks across 39 locations,
including military installations in Lahore, Mianwali, and Islamabad.
The bench questioned the legal grounds for trying civilians in military
courts, asking whether legislative amendments to the Army Act and
Official Secrets Act had been made in line with constitutional changes.
Justice Musarrat Hilali queried if there was internal facilitation
during the attack on Jinnah House, while Justice Mandokhail raised
concerns about intent, suggesting the violence might have stemmed from
protest that spiraled out of control.
Responding to a query about internal accountability in the Army, the AG
revealed that three senior officers, including a lieutenant general,
were retired without pension due to negligence, and 14 others were
censured. He clarified that disciplinary, not criminal, action was
taken.
Justice Naeem Afghan warned the AG to avoid delving into the merits of
the May 9 events, stressing that the focus should remain on
constitutional questions such as due process and the appellate
framework.
The AG noted that 86 convicts had filed appeals and requested leniency
in time limits for others. Complaining of time constraints during his
argument, he was assured by Justice Mandokhail that the bench’s priority
was the nation’s future