The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench dismissed on Monday the federal government’s request to permit military courts to issue verdicts on completed trials of civilians accused of participating in the May 9 riots.

The case involves over 100 civilians charged with their alleged involvement in attacks on military installations during the unrest that followed the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan on May 9, 2023.

Last year, a five-member Supreme Court bench—comprised of Justices Ijazul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, and Ayesha Malik—delivered a widely commended ruling, stating that trying these civilians in military courts was unconstitutional. The court had declared that the accused should be tried in regular criminal courts, which are established under ordinary or special law, rather than in military tribunals.

The ruling came in a case namely Justice (retd) Jawad S Khwaja vs Federation of Pakistan. The ruling was, however, challenged by the then federal and provincial caretaker governments.

The government filed another petition pleading that the military courts should be allowed to announce the judgments in the cases of civilians where other proceedings are already completed.

On Monday, a seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and including Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal Hassan, resumed hearings on the intra court appeals.

Senior counsel Khwaja Ahmad Hosain represented former CJP Jawwad S Khawaja, one of the petitioners against military trials. Analyst Hafeezullah Niazi, whose son Hassaan Khan Niazi is in military custody, was also present, along with Additional Attorney General Aamer Rehman representing the state.

The court rejected the plea to allow the announcement of the reserved judgments.

Justice Musarrat Hilali observed that allowing military courts to announce reserved judgments is equal to acceptance of such courts constitutional.

Moreover, the SC dismissed a plea by former chief justice Jawad S Khawaja to halt appeals against decisions made by special courts, fining him Rs20,000.

The former Chief Justice had filed the petition alongside senior lawyer, Aitzaz Ahsan, seeking a stay on proceedings until rulings on petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment were decided. The petition argued against the trial of civilians in military courts.

Justice Mandokhail remarked that the request for delay seemed motivated by “personal interests,” suggesting that the former CJP did not have a loved one under custody.

The court questioned Khawaja’s lawyer about the acceptance of the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench’s jurisdiction. The lawyer responded by stating that he did not recognize the bench’s authority, claiming it was appointed by the Judicial Commission under the amended constitution.

Read more:

Constitutional bench dismisses case against former CJP Isa

Constitutional bench demands report over audio leaks commission

Justice Mandokhail then asked the lawyer to leave the courtroom if he refused to acknowledge the bench’s jurisdiction. The lawyer reiterated his position, maintaining that the current bench was formed under the new constitutional amendment.

The petitioner’s lawyer argued that if the constitutional amendment were deemed invalid, then any decisions made under it would also be nullified. However, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar countered that judicial decisions generally maintain protection and that such requests are frequently filed.

Justice Mandokhail emphasized that the Supreme Court operates under the current constitutional amendment and that all benches are constituted under this amendment. He further clarified that the case challenging the amendment itself would also be heard by a bench formed under the same amendment. The court ultimately rejected Khawaja’s plea and imposed the fine.