On 13 December 2024, the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a landmark ruling that upheld the authority of military courts to try 85 civilians detained for their involvement in the violent May 9, 2023 riots. This decision has brought the ongoing debate over the military’s role in civilian justice matters to the forefront, raising important questions about the balance of power between civilian and military institutions in Pakistan.

Legal basis: Section 2(1)(d) of the Pakistan Army Act

Central to the Court's ruling is Section 2(1)(d) of the Pakistan Army Act, which allows military courts to try civilians in cases related to national security, such as espionage or terrorism. This provision has long been controversial, granting the military jurisdiction over civilians in specific cases, especially when national security is at risk.

This isn’t the first time the use of military courts has been challenged. In 2015, after the devastating attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar, military courts were introduced to expedite the trial of terrorism-related cases. The Supreme Court at that time upheld the legal validity of military courts, including Section 2(1)(d). The December 2024 ruling further solidifies this legal framework, extending it to those accused of undermining national security, such as those involved in the May 9 riots.

The May 9 Riots: A turning point

The May 9 riots erupted after the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, leading to widespread violence across the country. Protestors attacked military installations, government buildings, and public infrastructure, sparking a national crisis. In the aftermath, many individuals were detained, including civilians, some of whom have now been subject to military trials. The 85 civilians at the center of the Supreme Court's ruling are among those detained under military custody for their alleged role in the unrest.

The decision not only upholds their trial by military courts but also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future. Some of those detained during the May 9 unrest had already spent months in military custody, and the ruling will determine whether they will remain under military jurisdiction or be transferred to civilian jails, depending on the length of their sentences.

Broader debate on civilian trials in military courts

One of the key concerns raised by critics of the ruling is the legitimacy of trying civilians in military courts. For many, military tribunals are designed to deal with offenses committed by military personnel, not civilians. The argument is that trying civilians under military law undermines the principle of fair and transparent justice that civilian courts are supposed to guarantee.

Supporters of the decision, however, argue that military courts play an essential role in addressing cases of national security, especially in times of unrest like the May 9 riots. The fear is that without military courts, individuals involved in anti-state activities could evade swift punishment, potentially emboldening others to engage in similar behavior.

National security vs civil liberties

The central issue in this case is the tension between national security and civil liberties. Military courts are seen as necessary in times of national crisis, offering a more rapid and decisive form of justice. However, critics worry that the expanding use of military courts could lead to a slippery slope where ordinary civilians are subjected to military jurisdiction for a broader range of activities, from protests to acts of dissent.

Moreover, there’s a concern that the Supreme Court's ruling could inadvertently create an environment where anti-state activities, including espionage, are less deterred. Military courts, known for their speed and severity, have long served as a powerful deterrent, but critics argue that relying on them too heavily might undermine the civilian justice system and lead to a militarized approach to governance.

Military’s role in Pakistan’s stability

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the pivotal role of the military in Pakistan’s national security framework. While civilian authorities are crucial, the military is often seen as the protector of the nation, especially during times of instability. The Court’s ruling underscores the importance of the military’s involvement in ensuring swift justice for those involved in anti-state activities, particularly when national security is at stake.

However, the decision also highlights the complex relationship between civilian and military institutions in Pakistan. While the military’s role in safeguarding the nation is unquestioned, the growing influence of military courts in civilian matters raises important concerns about the future of Pakistan’s democracy and the independence of its judiciary.

The Supreme Court’s decision on 13 December 2024 has undoubtedly reshaped the legal landscape in Pakistan. It reinforces the military’s role in maintaining national security but also deepens the ongoing debate about the balance of power between the civilian and military spheres. For some, the ruling is necessary for ensuring stability, while for others it raises serious questions about the fairness and transparency of military tribunals.

The true impact of this ruling will unfold in the coming months and years. As Pakistan continues to grapple with political unrest and national security challenges, the role of the military in civilian affairs will remain a critical issue. The ruling may have resolved a specific case, but it has also set the stage for ongoing discussions about the future of justice and governance in Pakistan.

(The author is a postgraduate student in IR from International Islamic University, Pakistan. Views expressed are personal. She can be reached at zonishaahmed7@gmail.com )