Pakistan's top court restores military trial powers for civilians in key ruling

Pakistan’s Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the federal government’s appeals, reinstating key provisions of the Pakistan Army Act that permit the trial of civilians in military courts under certain conditions.

The verdict was announced by a seven-member bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, with a 5–2 majority in favor.

The bench also included Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Musarrat Hilali.

The ruling restores Sections 2(1)(d), 2(d)(ii), and 59(4) of the Army Act, which were previously struck down by a separate five-member bench. These provisions empower military courts to try civilians accused of offenses related to attacks on military installations, personnel, or matters deemed critical to national security.

The court also nullified the earlier judgment that had invalidated these clauses.

Moreover, the bench directed the federal government to introduce legal amendments within 45 days to ensure that military court verdicts are subject to appeal in civilian high courts.

Justice Aminuddin Khan noted that the full text of the judgment would soon be published on the Supreme Court’s website.

Dissenting judges oppose military trials, cite rights violations

Two justices of the top court, Justice Mandokhail and Justice Afghan, issued a dissenting note opposing the majority verdict that upheld the trial of civilians in military courts.

In their detailed reasoning, the judges argued that the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) is a disciplinary statute meant exclusively for members of the armed forces and therefore does not extend to civilians, who are entitled to constitutional protections and fundamental rights. They held that including civilians under the Army Act violates Article 8(3)(a) of the Constitution and cannot be exempted from the fundamental rights guaranteed therein.

The dissenting judges further stated that trying civilians in military courts contradicts the principles of judicial independence enshrined in Article 175, as military courts fall under the executive and not the judiciary.

They emphasized that such trials violate multiple constitutional rights—including the right to a fair trial, equality before law, access to information, and protections under Islamic injunctions—as outlined in Articles 2A, 9, 10, 10A, 19A, 25, and 227.

The note also declared that these trials breach international human rights treaties to which Pakistan is a signatory, including the ICCPR. Accordingly, they set aside the convictions and sentences awarded to civilians by military courts following the May 9, 2023 unrest, directing that those still in custody be treated as under-trial prisoners and shifted to regular courts for lawful proceedings.

What's the issue?

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.

The top court had reserved its verdict on Monday in the high-stakes case. 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.

Case background

The controversy centers on the nationwide unrest triggered by Imran Khan’s arrest on May 9, 2023. In a rare and dramatic escalation, enraged protesters stormed several high-security military sites—including the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi and the Lahore Corps Commander’s residence. Other defense and intelligence facilities were also attacked, representing one of the gravest internal security breaches in the country’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.