Pakistan’s top court nears decision on legality of military trials for civilians

Pakistan’s Supreme Court reserved its verdict on Monday in a high-stakes case that could redefine the boundaries between military authority and civilian rights.

The court wrapped up hearings on a set of government appeals seeking to overturn a ruling that declared the military trials of civilians unconstitutional.

A total of 56 hearings were held in the case, with proceedings on the appeals beginning on December 13, 2023.

The case traces back to the violent events of May 9, 2023, when the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan triggered attacks on military installations by his supporters. In the aftermath, dozens of civilians were taken into custody and charged under the Pakistan Army Act -- a move that sparked widespread criticism from human rights groups and legal experts who warned it violated fundamental due process and judicial independence.

A seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, concluded proceedings on the federal government’s intra-court appeals. Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan completed his arguments as the final day of hearings drew to a close. The court said a short order would be issued later this week.

Other members of the bench include Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Musarrat Hilali.

The hearing

During Monday’s proceedings, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan defended the government’s decision to try civilians in military courts over the May 9 violence. He said that the protests had escalated into coordinated attacks on 39 sensitive military and government installations across the country -- including the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, ISI offices, and an airbase in Mianwali.

Awan contended that the attacks were not spontaneous but a well-organized assault that temporarily disabled the operational capacity of an entire army corps between 5:40 p.m. and 9 p.m. on the day of the unrest. He warned that had there been external aggression during that window, the military would not have been able to respond.

Justice Mandokhail interjected, urging Awan to focus on the question of appeals and probing the nature of the events: “Was it a protest or an attack?” He asked whether the actions carried criminal intent or had simply spiraled out of control.

In response, Awan insisted that the incidents were criminal in nature, arguing that military courts were essential under Pakistan’s unique security challenges, especially given the constant threat of external hostility.

He also cited the precedent of the Supreme Court's directive in the extension case of former army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa, where parliament was asked to legislate on the matter. Awan suggested that a similar direction could be issued to establish an appellate forum for military court convictions. Justice Mazhar supported this view, noting that parliament was given six months to legislate in the Bajwa case.

Justice Hilali questioned the selective legislative urgency, pointing out that while the Constitution had been amended 26 times, laws like the Official Secrets Act remained unchanged. She also raised questions about possible internal collusion, asking whether a gate at Lahore’s Jinnah House had been opened from the inside during the attack.

Senior army officers dismissed over failures

The court was informed that 86 civilians convicted by military courts had already filed appeals, and the government intended to allow more time for others to do so.

Awan revealed that three senior army officers -- a lieutenant general, a brigadier, and a lieutenant colonel -- had been compulsorily retired without pension or benefits for failing to prevent the violence. Fourteen additional officers were denied promotions over unsatisfactory performance.

When asked whether any of these officers, including the then Lahore Corps Commander, were presented as witnesses in civilian trials, the AGP said such details would emerge during the appeal proceedings.

Concluding his arguments, Awan noted that although he had requested 45 minutes to present his case, 25 minutes had been consumed by judicial queries. He said he had especially set aside 20 minutes for Justice Mandokhail. In response, Justice Mandokhail remarked, “I have no personal interest in this case -- only the future of the country concerns me.”

Case background

The controversy stems from the violent unrest that erupted on May 9, 2023, following the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan. In an unprecedented turn of events, angry demonstrators ransacked several high-security sites, including the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi and the Lahore residence of the Corps Commander. Other military and intelligence facilities were also targeted, marking one of the most serious internal security breaches in Pakistan’s recent history.

In response, the federal government invoked provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, authorizing military courts to try civilians accused of attacking military installations or compromising national security. The move was swiftly condemned by human rights organizations, legal scholars, and opposition leaders, who called it a dangerous overreach and a direct violation of constitutional safeguards, particularly the right to due process enshrined in Article 10-A.

Critics warned that allowing military courts to prosecute civilians risked eroding the civilian judiciary’s authority and set a troubling precedent for future cases involving dissent or political unrest. The debate also reignited long-standing concerns about the opacity of military court proceedings and the lack of an effective appeals process.

In October 2023, the Supreme Court’s five-member bench ruled that trying civilians in military courts was unconstitutional, declaring that such cases must be handled by ordinary criminal courts. The verdict was subsequently suspended after the government filed intra-court appeals, the hearings for which have now concluded.