On 7 May 2025, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a significant judgment on an intra-court appeal concerning a critical question:
Can civilians be tried in military courts, particularly those allegedly involved in the events of 9 May?
By a 3–2 majority, the bench upheld the legality of military trials for civilians in certain circumstances. This decision revisits and effectively overturns the landmark 23 October 2023 judgment, in which a five-member bench had ruled (by a 4–1 majority) that civilians could not be subjected to military trials.
This latest ruling has profound constitutional, legal, and human rights implications.
Military Trial vs. Ordinary Criminal Trial – What Is the Difference?
To understand the gravity of this issue, one must first understand the structural differences between the two systems.
1. Legal Framework
Ordinary Criminal Trials
-
Governed by the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – procedural law.
-
Governed by the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) – substantive law (offences and punishments).
-
Open court proceedings.
-
Full right to engage legal counsel.
-
Decisions made by trained judicial officers.
-
Multi-tier appeal mechanism: Magistrate → Sessions Court → High Court → Supreme Court.
Military Trials
-
Governed by the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.
-
A hybrid law containing both procedural and substantive provisions.
-
Closed-door proceedings.
-
Limited access to legal counsel compared to ordinary courts.
-
Decisions made by military officers.
-
Restricted appellate structure (Field General Court Martial, District Court Martial).
Speed vs. Fairness
It is often argued that military trials are faster. That may be true.
However, ordinary courts, though slower, are designed to ensure:
-
Transparency
-
Due process
-
Judicial independence
-
Protection of fundamental rights
Military trials, on the other hand, raise serious concerns regarding:
-
Open justice
-
Right to fair trial
-
Access to counsel of choice
-
Independent adjudication
Constitutional Concerns
The Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 guarantees:
-
Article 10A – Right to fair trial and due process
-
Article 25 – Equality before law
-
Article 4 – Right to be dealt with in accordance with law
If two civilians commit similar offences, but one is tried in an ordinary court and the other in a military court solely due to the nature of the location or alleged connection to military property, questions of equality arise.
Justice must not only be swift, it must be fair, transparent, and constitutionally sound.
The 21st Amendment and Its Legacy
Military trials of civilians gained constitutional backing through the 21st Constitutional Amendment following the tragic attack on the Army Public School (APS) in December 2014. That amendment was justified as an extraordinary measure to combat terrorism.
However, the extension of military jurisdiction to civilians in other contexts, including the 9 May incidents, remains deeply debated.
The key question remains:
Should extraordinary mechanisms become ordinary tools?
The 9 May Context
The events of 9 May 2023 led to arrests under anti-terrorism laws. Many civilians were tried in military courts over the past two years.
Critics argue:
-
Bail procedures were restricted.
-
Access to independent counsel was limited.
-
Appeals mechanisms were narrower than in civilian courts.
-
Transparency was lacking.
Supporters argue:
-
National security concerns justified swift military proceedings.
-
Attacks on military installations required military jurisdiction.
The debate is not merely legal, it is constitutional and historical.
A Judgment for the History Books
The 7 May 2025 decision will undoubtedly be studied for decades.
At stake is not just the jurisdiction of military courts, but the balance between:
-
National security
-
Civil liberties
-
Constitutional supremacy
-
Judicial independence
In any democratic framework, extraordinary powers must remain exceptional and proportionate.
Conclusion
Military trials and ordinary criminal trials operate under fundamentally different structures. One prioritizes speed and internal discipline. The other prioritizes transparency, procedural safeguards, and judicial independence.
The constitutional promise of equality and fair trial demands careful scrutiny whenever civilians are removed from the ordinary justice system.
This issue goes beyond any single event. It goes to the heart of how a constitutional democracy defines justice.
History will ultimately decide how this judgment is remembered.