ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court questioned whether the trials against the 9th May rioters in military courts were also conducted for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) sections.
A seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Friday, while hearing the intra-court appeals (ICAs) against the SC’s judgment, examined the criteria for determining which cases go to military courts.
The bench raised critical questions about the selective application of military trials during an intra-court appeal hearing regarding civilian cases in military courts.
During the proceeding, Justice Mussarat Hilali observed that in the FIRs, registered against 9th May incidents, besides the provisions of Army Act, there are also many sections of PPC.
She questioned whether the trials in military courts were also conducted for the PPC sections, or those sections will be tried by ordinary courts?
Justice Aminuddin said suppose there were 10 sections of various offences, but the military court had jurisdiction only for four sections, then where the remaining six offences would be tried?
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned what the purpose of including so many sections in the FIRs was, adding most of the sections relate to crimes under the PPC. He observed that might be after the investigation it was considered to drop other clauses and trial was necessary under a few clauses of Army Act.
Justice Hilali recalled that at the time of the 9th May riots she was the chief justice of Peshawar High Court, adding when she was passing through the routes where people (PTI workers) were protesting, the police told his driver not to take those routes as the situation had turned worst. She questioned that the terror spread among the masses would also come under the jurisdiction of the military courts or anti-terrorism courts.
She remarked that on 9 and 10 May there were also aerial firing incidents, and it was in her knowledge that on those two days people had stolen weapons from a guns and arms store in Peshawar. She questioned where that shopkeeper would go for redressal of his grievances.
Justice Mazhar said that two trials of the 9th May accused cannot be allowed. It cannot happen that the trial of lesser punishment is held in military courts, while for serious crimes under PPC sections is conducted in the sessions or anti-terrorism courts? He said suppose there was no section of 302 under PPC in the FIR, but if there was death or theft incidents then where such trials will be held?
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said it cannot happen that two separate trials are held; one in military courts, while the other in the ordinary courts. Justice Hilali said they would not allow that a person after completing his sentence awarded by military court, face another trial under the same FIR before the sessions court. She said according to her knowledge there was no section of Army Act in the FIRs, but were added later on.
Khawaja Haris contended that many accused who were sentenced by the military courts later filed appeals and mercy petitions before the competent forum.
Justice Mazhar said this Court did not ask anyone to file appeal or the mercy petition against the sentence awarded by military courts. He asked the counsel to give complete record how many accused out of 105 had filed appeals and the mercy petitions before the military officials. He told Khawaja Haris to provide record of the trials, as well.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments