On December 13, 2024, Pakistan’s Supreme Court delivered a significant verdict, allowing military courts to pronounce reserved judgments for 85 civilians detained under military custody. These individuals were charged with involvement in the riots that took place on May 9, 2023. The decision has stirred debate, touching on issues of judicial precedent, national security, and the civilian-military dynamic in Pakistan.
This landmark ruling reaffirms the applicability of Section 2(1)(d) of the Pakistan Army Act, which permits the military to try civilians accused of offenses such as espionage or acts against the state. It raises questions about the balance between upholding constitutional rights and ensuring national security in a volatile geopolitical climate.
Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court’s endorsement of military courts in this case is not without precedent. In 2015, a full court bench upheld the establishment of military courts and implicitly validated Section 2(1)(d) of the Pakistan Army Act. This section has been invoked to try civilians involved in anti-state activities, especially those violating the Official Secrets Act.
The December 2024 ruling not only supports this framework but underscores its necessity in addressing matters of national security. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail’s dissenting remarks questioned the application of the Pakistan Army Act to individuals not affiliated with the armed forces. However, the majority opinion of the bench reflects a broader interpretation, emphasizing the unique challenges posed by anti-state actions. It reflects an attempt to strike a delicate balance between individual rights and collective security. In a democracy, the judiciary is tasked with upholding constitutional principles while addressing the practical realities of governance.
Pakistan’s volatile security environment necessitates strong measures to deter anti-state actions. However, these measures must be implemented within a framework that respects fundamental rights and ensures accountability. Judicial oversight of military courts can mitigate concerns about potential misuse of power, but only if it is robust and transparent.
Rehabilitation of Convicts and Legal Precedent
Twenty individuals convicted by military courts were released after serving reduced sentences, granted clemency by the Chief of Army Staff in April, 2024. These cases set a precedent for rehabilitation under the Pakistan Army Act.
The Supreme Court’s December 2024 directive implies a similar approach, suggesting that sentences could be reviewed for convicts who have served significant time in custody. While some may be eligible for release, others will transition to civilian prisons, underscoring a hybrid approach to justice. This nuanced framework attempts to balance the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of the justice system while adhering to the constitutional mandate to protect state interests.
Pakistan faces unique challenges, including internal insurgencies, border conflicts, and external threats. The May 9 riots, which targeted military installations and critical infrastructure, highlighted the severity of such anti-state activities. Supreme Court has recognized the need for a specialized mechanism to address these threats. This decision reinforces the military’s authority while ensuring its actions remain under judicial oversight, thus maintaining a semblance of checks and balances.
While the verdict has been hailed by some as a pragmatic approach to national security, it has also faced criticism. Critics of the military court system argue that trying civilians under the Pakistan Army Act infringes on fundamental rights. Civil society groups and human rights organizations argue that military courts lack transparency and procedural safeguards. The absence of public trials and limited access to legal counsel for the accused raise concerns about fairness. However, proponents contend that removing military jurisdiction in cases of espionage and anti-state activities could embolden offenders.
The Supreme Court’s decision indirectly strengthens the deterrence mechanism against espionage. Military tribunals, known for their efficiency, can handle sensitive cases without the procedural delays often encountered in civilian courts. In a world where hybrid warfare and information leaks pose growing threats, this expedited process is viewed as critical to safeguarding national security.
Failure to uphold the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) might create a vacuum in dealing with individuals engaged in covert operations against the state. This concern is particularly relevant in a region marked by complex geopolitical rivalries and internal security challenges.
Conclusion
By endorsing military jurisdiction in specific cases, the judiciary has emphasized the importance of addressing anti-state activities decisively. While this ruling reinforces the role of the military in safeguarding national security, it also underscores the need for continued judicial oversight and reform. In navigating the delicate interplay between rights and security, Pakistan must strive to uphold democratic values without compromising its sovereignty and integrity.
As the nation moves forward, it is imperative to build a justice system that is both robust and fair, capable of addressing modern challenges while respecting the principles of rule of law. The Supreme Court’s decision, though contentious, serves as a reminder of the high stakes involved in preserving peace and stability in Pakistan.
