Pakistan’s Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on multiple appeals questioning the legality of prosecuting civilians in military courts, specifically those involved in the May 9, 2023, protests.
A six-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, wrapped up hearings on 38 intra-court appeals filed by both federal and provincial governments, as well as the Shuhada Forum Balochistan. A brief judgment is expected later this week.
The case follows an October 2023 ruling by the Supreme Court, which declared the trial of civilians in military courts to be unconstitutional, sparking widespread legal and political debates. This decision came after petitions were filed against the military trials of those involved in attacks on military facilities during the May 9 riots.
Despite the ruling, military courts had already convicted 85 Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) members to prison sentences ranging from two to ten years. In January, the military granted clemency to 19 individuals on humanitarian grounds, according to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).
During the hearing, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan defended the military’s involvement, stating that 39 military sites were attacked between 3 pm and 7 pm on May 9, 2023, with 23 incidents occurring in Punjab, eight in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and one in Sindh. He argued that the protests were not spontaneous but orchestrated, and even if the violence was in response to previous events, it could not be justified. “Our country is not an ordinary one; due to its geographic location, we constantly face significant threats,” Awan explained.
The Attorney General also revealed that three senior military officers—a Lieutenant General, a Brigadier, and a Lieutenant Colonel—were forcibly retired without pension or benefits due to negligence in preventing the attack on Jinnah House in Lahore. Additionally, fourteen officers were denied promotions for their poor handling of the situation.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail inquired whether any criminal proceedings had been initiated against the military personnel involved. Awan responded that no crimes had been committed, so no criminal cases had been filed, adding that only disciplinary actions were taken due to failure to act appropriately.
Justice Mandokhail emphasized that under Pakistan’s Army Act, disciplinary actions must be accompanied by criminal accountability when necessary. Awan replied that only the officers who “exercised restraint” had faced disciplinary measures.
Justice Aminuddin Khan concluded that the court would issue a short order later this week.
