Lawyers welcome the ‘courageous’ SC civilian military trial

Asad Rahim Khan stated, “Today’s verdict reminds us why citizens still look to the court for justice for military trial.”

After a long wait, a five-member Supreme Court reversed the military trial of 102 May 9 rally arrestees.

Justices Munib Akhtar, Yayha Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, and Ayesha A. Malik were on the bench, chaired by Justice Ijazul Ahsan.

Former senator and petitioners’ lawyer Aitezaz Ahsan called the verdict “very important” and said it will “strengthen democracy, the Constitution, and the justice system”.

It’s vital that all institutions know the Supreme Court has declared the law supreme.”

Good Constitution Day for Military Trial:

Lawyer Rida Hosain called it a “historic and brave decision”.

“Despite intense pressure, the Supreme Court ruled the military cannot administer civilian justice. The illegal Pakistan Army Act 1952 lets military courts try civilians. Criminal tribunals will try military-captured civilians. Constitutional rights were at stake. She wanted a fair trial.

Secret trials, army judges without legal training, and no right to a reasoned verdict make court-martial proceedings unfair.There is no genuine opportunity to appeal, said Hosain.

The court protected fundamental rights by banning civilian military trials. Hosain said the country and constitution are good.

Read More: More flights are canceled.PIA fails to arrange fuel again,

Sindh’s attorney and chief minister’s special assistant, Mirza Moiz Baig, said the Supreme Court’s verdict today supports civilian criminal trials.

The Supreme Court invalidated Section 2(d) of the Army Act, 1952, prohibiting civilians from military criminal trials, according to the media.

Restoring judicial trust:

Barrister Asad Rahim Khan praised the SC judgment as “courageous and potentially expansive”.

Exceptions aside, military tribunals cannot sentence people while civilian courts are in session.

Rahim thinks the verdict “removes any ambiguity left over from earlier judgments,” based on the court order’s details.
Added, “Today’s verdict reminds us why citizens still look to the court for justice.”
Lawyer and journalist Reema Omer wrote on X [formerly Twitter] that the verdict is “truly historic” if media reports are true.

She added that violent suspects will face ordinary court hearings on May 9–10, and military tribunal convicts like Idrees Khattak can seek reparation and end military injustice.

Lawyer Hassan A. Niazi sees it as “an excellent and brave step by the Supreme Court to show that our Constitution is still alive despite the past year’s setbacks.”

He warned, “It must now guard against attempts to subvert this decision.”

Very first development

Lawyer Usama Khawar called the SC verdict “a significant and unprecedented development in Pakistan’s constitutional and judicial history.”
Khawar says many compelling reasons make this verdict exceptional:

Disrupting History: The SC’s May 9 riots ruling is remarkable. After the military’s dominance declined, Zia’s overthrow of the Junejo administration, Musharraf’s unconstitutional emergency, and his treason trial were ordered. In contrast, this ruling threatens critical military interests. The Pakistan Army stated its purpose during the GHQ Formation Commanders Conference by claiming “irrefutable” proof against the May 9 rioters. Parliament, political parties, and various government levels endorsed military courts, proving widespread support for the verdict.

Promote the 18th Amendment “right to a fair trial”: The judgment is crucial to that purpose. It slowly interprets Article 10A and may impact other fair trial laws.

This ruling is a sincere attempt to examine Praetorian statutes that have not been addressed since the 2010 fair trial law. This shows how the court checks statutes’ constitutionality.

Since May 9, mandates have been ignored without punishment, undermining public trust in the judiciary. This trust may return after the ruling.

Supreme Court Verdict:

The Supreme Court’s verdict proves its independence and trustworthiness. The verdict shows that the chief justice does not have a monopoly on the court and does not favor military preferences, promoting judicial independence. It also implies that Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa does not influence judicial decisions in favor of the establishment or government. It also questions if the new CJP will serve these interests.
Lawyer Ayman Zafar emphasized that the Supreme Court’s nine-member bench in Liaqat Hussain’s case deemed military courts illegal and overturned them.

She said the Supreme Court validated military courts through a 2015 constitutional amendment with a ‘sunset clause,’ “illustrating the Supreme Court’s unanimity regarding the Constitution even back then, which in its present form does not allow for civilian trials in military courts, and any such endeavor must be undertaken by way of a constitutional amendment.

Military Act:

“While the military may act in aid of civil power, per Article 245 of the Constitution, this meaning cannot be expanded to grant them a judicial role,” Zafar stated. The current military court system limits appeals to the Chief of Army Staff and not Pakistan’s superior courts.

Special anti-terrorist courts hear terrorism cases. Deviation from these courts would create a ‘parallel legal system’, violating judicial independence. Since military trials of civilians may inspire intervention in other branches, the Supreme Court has declared them null and unlawful and against the Constitution. Pakistani residents and victims deserve truth and justice after the May 9 riots and property devastation. Instead of military trials for civilians, transparent and fair civilian court prosecutions for the guilty should achieve justice. This policy would protect the legal process and ensure accountability.”

“This verdict has major legal and historical implications. This means May 9 suspects will be tried in civilian tribunals, and other citizens convicted by military courts may receive relief. This conviction also sets a precedent to prevent military injustice and disproportionate authority in critical situations involving civilian life and human rights.

Court-set rule:

The defendant’s counsel, Muhammad Ahmad Pansota, praised the result, saying a civilian cannot be punished under the Military Act or in military court.

I think today’s Supreme Court ruling settled that idea. Government attempts to restrict the accused’s trial were denied or overturned.

“I think it will help the complainant deal with the accused,” he said.
I expect the Pakistani government to challenge this ruling now that the Practice and Procedures Act, 2023, authorizes appeals. It may be appealing, which is intriguing. Let’s watch what CJP Isa does and what larger bench he establishes. The previous full court bench handled military cases in 2015. He warned, “It must now guard against attempts to subvert this decision.”

Very first development

Lawyer Usama Khawar called the SC verdict “a significant and unprecedented development in Pakistan’s constitutional and judicial history.”
Khawar says many compelling reasons make this verdict exceptional:
Disrupting History: The SC’s May 9 rioters’ verdict is extraordinary. Zia overthrew Junejo, Musharraf’s illegitimate emergency, and his treason prosecution as military rule waned. In contrast, this ruling threatens critical military interests.At the GHQ Formation Commanders Conference, the Pakistan Army openly asserted “irrefutable” evidence against the May 9 rioters, stating its purpose. Parliament, political parties, and other government levels supported military courts, demonstrating public support for the military’s verdict.

Promotion for Military Trial:

Promote the 18th Amendment “right to a fair trial”: The judgment is crucial to that purpose. It slowly interprets Article 10A and may impact other fair trial laws.
This ruling seeks to revisit Praetorian statutes not examined since the 2010 fair trial law. This shows how the court checks statutes’ constitutionality.

Since May 9, mandates have been ignored without repercussions, undermining public trust in the judiciary. The ruling may restore trust.

The Supreme Court’s verdict proves its independence and trustworthiness. It improves judicial independence by establishing that the chief justice does not control the court or endorse military biases.

The outcome implies that Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa is not swaying judicial judgments toward the government or establishment. It doubts whether the new CJP will represent these interests.