Supreme Court Judges Oppose Military Trials for Civilians in May 9 Riots Case

Islamabad:The **Supreme Court of Pakistan** has released a **36-page dissenting note** authored by **Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail** and **Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan**, disagreeing with the **majority verdict** that allowed military trials of civilians involved in the **May 9 PTI protests**, which included incidents of arson and violence.

### Key Highlights of the Dissenting Opinion:

* The judges **rejected the appeals filed by the Ministry of Defence**, stating that **military courts cannot try civilians**.
* They emphasized that the **primary role of the armed forces is national defense**, not performing **judicial functions**.
* The note firmly stated:

> **”Judicial authority cannot be transferred to any administrative body. If the military begins acting as a judiciary, it will erode public trust.”**

### Constitutional and Religious Foundations:

The judges cited both **Islamic teachings** and **constitutional principles**, stating:

* **”The Quran and the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ emphasized an independent judiciary.”**
* **”Caliph Umar (RA) maintained a clear separation between administration and judiciary.”**
* These principles are enshrined in **Pakistan’s Objectives Resolution** and reflected in the **Constitution**, which upholds the independence of the judiciary.

### Limits of Military Jurisdiction:

Justice Mandokhail’s note elaborated that:

* The **military court system is designed to maintain internal discipline within the armed forces**, not to try civilians.
* Historically, under the **Indian Army Act of 1911**, the military’s jurisdiction was limited strictly to **service-related offenses committed by military personnel**.
* **”Court-martials were only applicable in matters concerning breaches of military discipline—not for prosecuting civilians.”**

### Civil Liberties Must Prevail:

The dissent underlined that **civilian rights and constitutional protections cannot be compromised**, even in cases involving national security:

> **”Under the Constitution, citizens’ fundamental rights cannot be sacrificed. Military law is not a replacement for constitutional justice.”**

### Context:

This dissent comes amid ongoing national debate following the **violent protests and attacks on military installations** on **May 9, 2023**, after the arrest of former Prime Minister **Imran Khan**. Dozens of PTI supporters were taken into custody, and the government had sought their trial in military courts.

While the **majority of the Supreme Court bench** allowed military trials under specific conditions, this **powerful dissent** reinforces the argument that **only civilian courts** should try civilians, in line with constitutional safeguards.

This difference of opinion among top judges signals a **deep divide** over civil-military relations and the scope of judicial independence in Pakistan.