A seven-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) recently heard an intra-court appeal challenging the decision to try civilians involved in the May 9 incidents in military courts. The proceedings brought attention to several critical issues surrounding legal precedents, military jurisdiction, and the scope of the Army Act.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi raised concerns about the security failure during the May 9 incident, where civilians breached the Corps Commander House without weapons. He pointed out that this breach indicated a significant lapse in security and questioned how protesters could have reached the military facility unarmed. The lawyer for the Ministry of Defense, Khawaja Haris, confirmed that the accused protesters were charged with damaging property, but there had been no accountability for military personnel involved in the event.
“People entering the Corps Commander House is a security failure,” said Justice Rizvi, highlighting the breach as a crucial oversight in military security. This comment underscored the broader issue of accountability for both civilians and military personnel involved in the events.
Military Jurisdiction and Civilian Trials
The court also explored the scope of military jurisdiction in civilian matters. Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned whether a civilian dispute with a soldier within a cantonment would fall under military jurisdiction. Khawaja Haris responded that such incidents were distinct from broader legal issues, drawing a line between everyday disputes and matters related to military law.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel further raised concerns about the application of military trials to civilians, stating that the issue of trying civilians in military courts was becoming more expansive. Haris defended the application of military jurisdiction, explaining that civilians interfering in military affairs could be tried in military courts, a law that had been in place since 1967.
Justice Rizvi noted that the historical context of military trials, including the FB Ali case from the Martial Law era, needed to be carefully considered. He pointed out that the FB Ali case involved retired officers, and the Supreme Court had previously ruled that retired military officers should be treated as civilians. This context was important in determining the application of military trials to current cases.
Expanding Scope of the Army Act
The bench continued to examine the broadening interpretation of the Army Act, particularly in relation to civilian cases. Khawaja Haris referred to the Liaquat Hussain case as a precedent for trying civilians in military courts for civil offenses. However, Justice Mandokhel expressed concern that the expanding scope of the Army Act could lead to a situation where anyone could potentially be subjected to military trials, raising important questions about its limits.
The court also addressed the issue of incidents like attacks on army convoys or disputes at military checkpoints, which could be seen as breaches of military discipline. Haris argued that disrupting army operations could warrant military trials, but Justice Mandokhel cautioned that such a broad interpretation might have unintended consequences.
Military Trials and Constitutional Implications
The court acknowledged the historical context of military trials, noting that martial law had ended with the implementation of the new constitution. Justice Rizvi emphasized that the military trial process needed careful consideration, particularly with regard to the evolving role of the military in civilian matters.
The bench expressed concern over the extent to which the military’s jurisdiction was being extended into civilian matters. “The issue of military trials is being expanded a lot,” Justice Mandokhel stated, highlighting the increasing use of military courts to try civilians. The judges discussed whether it was appropriate for civilians to face military trials for actions that were not related to direct interference with military operations or national defense.
The Quest for Accountability
Justice Rizvi raised another important question: “Who was behind the conspiracy?” He pointed out the need to identify the mastermind behind the May 9 incidents, indicating that those responsible for orchestrating the events should also be held accountable in military courts. This remark underscored the importance of distinguishing between those directly involved in the actions of May 9 and the individuals who may have been responsible for instigating the protests and disturbances.
Conclusion of Proceedings
As the hearing concluded, the bench acknowledged that further deliberation was necessary to define the scope of military trials for civilians. Justice Mandokhel reiterated that the court needed to determine under which circumstances civilians could be tried in military courts, reflecting the complexity of the issue.
The case has been adjourned until Wednesday, with the court reserving its decision. The unresolved questions surrounding civilian accountability, military jurisdiction, and the application of the Army Act in cases like those of May 9 remain pivotal points of discussion.
