In a momentous legal pronouncement, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court delivered a groundbreaking decision by a majority vote of 4-1, unequivocally declaring military trials of civilians linked to attacks on army installations as unconstitutional.
This distinguished panel, led by Justice Ijazul Ahsan and comprising eminent jurists including Justices Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, and Ayesha A Malik, has resolutely ordained that cases involving individuals implicated in the May 9 incidents will be heard in civilian criminal courts. This landmark decision underscores the supreme importance of upholding the rights of civilians and underpins the compelling need for a legal process that is fair and impartial.
The verdict boldly asserts the unconstitutionality of military trials for civilians under various provisions of the Pakistan Army Act (PAA), rendering such trials “null and void.” This underscores the pivotal role of criminal courts and reinforces the duty to ensure that accused civilians face a judicial process that is equitable, unbiased, and procedurally just. While the federal government has declared its intent to challenge this decision, it is vital to acknowledge the profound significance of this judgment.
In an intriguing twist, Justice Yahya Afridi has reserved his ruling on a critical point, where the majority of four judges have concurred that certain sections of the PAA are “ultra vires” and thus bereft of any legal effect. These contested sections relate to the inclusion of civilians in military trials for offences such as seducing army officers from their duties or their involvement in defence-related transgressions.
The Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP), Mansoor Usman Awan, has disclosed the government’s intention to challenge this ruling by filing an appeal. If this appeal is pursued, it will be scrutinized by a larger bench of judges, distinct from the present five-judge composition, as stipulated by the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act of 2023.
This groundbreaking verdict not only sets a robust legal precedent for future cases where institutions may infringe upon constitutional principles but also serves to rejuvenate the fundamental tenets of judicial independence and the safeguarding of the right to a free and impartial trial. It symbolises a ray of hope in tumultuous times, reasserting the sanctity of justice and the indispensable role of an impartial judiciary within Pakistan’s democratic tapestry.