The Pakistan Supreme Court’s recent verdict allowing military trials for civilians has sparked controversy, as it significantly strengthens the power of Army Chief General Asim Munir amid political unrest. The ruling sets aside a 2023 decision that had declared such trials unconstitutional and enables the military to prosecute those involved in the May 9, 2023 anti-army protests.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of Pakistan’s recent ruling allowing the trial of civilians in military courts marks a significant shift in the country’s legal and democratic landscape. Delivered on May 7, 2025, by a seven-judge constitutional bench, the 5-2 verdict reinstated three sections of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, that had previously been struck down.
This decision not only overturned the court’s own October 2023 ruling that deemed such military trials unconstitutional, but also effectively strengthened the hand of Army Chief General Asim Munir — at a time when his popularity is waning and tensions with India are rising.
The judgment enables the prosecution of civilians involved in the May 9, 2023 anti-army protests, which erupted after the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, seen widely as a move engineered by General Munir.
When viewed through the lens of Indian constitutional principles, this ruling reflects a sharp divergence in the roles played by the judiciary in the two neighbouring countries. Under Indian law, civilians cannot be tried in military courts, barring the most exceptional wartime circumstances, and even then only under strict legal scrutiny.
According to Indian Law
India’s Constitution, particularly Article 21, guarantees every citizen the right to life and personal liberty, which includes a fair trial. In the landmark 2016 judgment in Union of India v. Charanjit S. Gill, the Supreme Court of India ruled that civilians could not be tried by military courts unless they were explicitly covered under special statutes — which is almost never the case. India ensures that even those accused of terrorism or national security offences are tried in civilian courts, which offer transparent procedures, legal representation, and the right to appeal.
By contrast, the Pakistani judiciary’s endorsement of military trials for civilians opens the door for expanded army control over political dissent. This is especially significant because the May 9 protests led to the arrest of nearly 1,000 supporters of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), many of whom were reportedly detained without evidence. The ruling is being seen as a legal shield for General Munir to suppress opposition without accountability.
PTI leaders have strongly criticised the judgment. Omar Ayub Khan, a PTI Member of Parliament, remarked, “The decision has been given on a day when the purportedly installed regime and the establishment want to build National Cohesion.”
PTI’s Sindh chief, Haleem Adil Sheikh, condemned the verdict’s timing, saying, “Dropping the military courts verdict amid a war-like situation is a deliberate move to mask injustice.”
Reena Omer, the South Asia legal advisor to the International Commission of Jurists, also voiced concern, calling the ruling “Terrible, though perhaps expected,” and added, “A pity the highest court of the land is on board with such militarisation of justice in the country.”
This comparison underscores the stark contrast between India and Pakistan in terms of judicial independence and military oversight. While India’s judiciary acts as a guardian of civilian rights and constitutional freedoms, the Pakistan Supreme Court’s ruling appears to legitimise the military’s political role.
The decision grants General Munir greater control at a time when his leadership is being questioned — both for internal suppression and provocative rhetoric against India following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.
His recent comments invoking the “two-nation theory,” describing Kashmir as Pakistan’s “jugular vein,” and warning of a “easy, resolute, and notch-up response” to any Indian “military misadventure,” have only increased regional instability.
In conclusion, while the Indian legal system upholds the supremacy of civilian rule and due process even under crisis, Pakistan’s judiciary seems to have sided with military interests, giving legal backing to a powerful institution that already plays an outsized role in governance. This ruling does not just alter the legal framework — it redefines the balance of power in Pakistan, cementing General Munir’s grip over the state machinery.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
