On Monday, the federal government presented its stance to the Supreme Court (SC) that trying civilians who allegedly attacked sensitive military locations in military courts is an appropriate and balanced response to the May 9 incident, where violent protests erupted across the nation following the arrest of PTI chief Imran Khan.
This argument was put forth in a brief statement submitted to the court by the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP), Mansoor Usman Awan. The statement was given in light of the court resuming hearings related to civilian trials in military courts on July 18. The pleas under review were lodged by ex-chief justice Jawwad S. Khawaja, Aitzaz Ahsan, Karamat Ali, and the PTI chief. The AGP had informed the SC in a prior hearing that 102 civilians, apprehended from different parts of the nation in response to the violence on May 9, were held in military custody.
In the submitted statement, the federal government detailed that the May 9 incidents were a calculated and deliberate attempt to destabilize the nation’s armed forces and disrupt internal security and were not confined to specific areas. It reported total damages of Rs2,539.19 million, which includes losses of Rs1,982.95m to military establishments, equipment, and vehicles.
The Legal Framework: Army Act and Official Secrets Act
While acknowledging that some of the First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against the alleged individuals didn’t specifically state the provisions of the Army Act, the government reminded that the SC had earlier decided that the nature of the offenses should be inferred from the FIR’s contents, not the explicit mention of any statutory provision.
The federal government also countered the petitions against civilian trials in military courts, arguing that the SC’s original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution was not applicable. It said that the high courts could only adjudicate such matters under their original constitutional jurisdiction provided by Article 199.
Additionally, the government emphasized that the Army Act and the Official Secrets Act, which predate the Constitution and have never been legally challenged, should be considered fair and lawful. It cautioned that SC’s original jurisdiction over these petitions could unjustly deprive those tried under the Army Act or the federation from seeking the apex court’s appellate jurisdiction.
The statement also suggested that these petitions should be reviewed by the full court and proposed the chief justice consider the reconstitution of the current bench. The government insisted that the trial of the accused, whether military or civilian, could not be disputed for violating fundamental rights.
The government noted that not all arrested individuals were being tried under army laws, but only those who strictly violated the offenses outlined in the Official Secrets Act, especially those who infiltrated a prohibited area.
National Security and the Importance of Upholding Military Trials
According to the government, no new statutory frameworks or legal tools have been introduced to try the accused. The suspects who caused damage, destruction, or illegal entry to military establishments are being tried under the pre-existing statutory regime of the Army Act and relevant provisions of the Official Secrets Act.
It emphasized that court-martials and district trial courts, which have coexisted since the inception of Pakistan, follow similar legal and procedural frameworks, contrary to any perceived conflict.
Finally, the government stressed that violent actions against military installations and establishments undermine national security. They cited recent instances involving Shakeel Afridi and Kulbhushan Yadav as evidence of foreign powers attempting to destabilize the armed forces and compromise national security. Therefore, they insisted that those accused of violence against armed forces under the Army Act align with Pakistan’s constitutional and statutory regime and asked the court to dismiss the pleas.
