Pakistan’s Supreme Court on Monday reserved its judgment on a series of appeals challenging the legality of trying civilians in military courts, particularly those accused in the May 9, 2023, protests.
The six-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, concluded hearings on 38 intra-court appeals filed by federal and provincial governments, as well as the Shuhada Forum Balochistan. A brief judgment is anticipated later this week.
The case stems from an October 2023 decision where the apex court declared the trial of civilians in military courts null and void, prompting significant legal and political discourse.
That verdict was delivered unanimously by a five-member bench in response to petitions against trying suspects involved in attacks on military installations during the May 9 riots.
Despite the ruling, military courts had already sentenced 85 Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) activists to terms ranging from two to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. In January, the military accepted 19 mercy pleas on humanitarian grounds, according to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).
During the hearing, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan defended the military’s role, saying coordinated attacks occurred on 39 military sites between 3 pm and 7 pm on May 9, 2023. According to him, 23 incidents took place in Punjab, eight in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and one in Sindh.
He argued that the protests were not spontaneous but a result of “organised planning.” He also said that even if the violence was reactionary, it could not be excused. “Our country is not an ordinary one; due to its geography, we constantly face significant threats,” Awan told the court.
The attorney general disclosed that three senior army officers – a Lieutenant General, a Brigadier, and a Lieutenant Colonel – had been forcibly retired without pension or benefits due to negligence in preventing the attack on Lahore’s Jinnah House. Fourteen other officers were denied promotions due to dissatisfaction with their handling of the situation.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked whether any criminal proceedings had been initiated against military personnel. Awan replied that no crimes were committed, and therefore no criminal cases were registered. He clarified that disciplinary measures were taken for failure to act, not for unlawful conduct.
Justice Mandokhail noted that under Pakistan’s Army Act, departmental action must be accompanied by criminal accountability when warranted. Awan responded that only officers who had “exercised restraint” had faced disciplinary action.
