The Platform

MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD!
Photo illustration by John Lyman

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow military courts to try civilians highlights the urgent need for judicial reforms in Pakistan to restore trust and uphold democratic principles.

On December 13, a four-member panel of the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench ruled that military courts could reserve their judgments in the cases of 85 civilians accused of participating in the May 9 riots of the previous year. This decision has reignited debates about justice, the rule of law, and the precarious balance between stability and chaos in Pakistan’s political landscape.

Pakistan’s judiciary faces a monumental backlog of approximately 2.2 million civil court cases, with a judge-to-population ratio of just one judge for every 3,000 citizens. This systemic inefficiency—compounded by corruption, bureaucratic inertia, and political dysfunction—has led to military courts stepping in to fill the void, further straining the country’s fragile democratic framework.

Supporters of the Supreme Court’s ruling argue that such measures are necessary to maintain law and order during extraordinary times. However, critics contend that relying on military courts undermines democratic principles and risks suspending civil liberties indefinitely. This tension underscores the dire need for systemic reforms within Pakistan’s civilian judicial system to restore public trust and uphold the rule of law.

The recent decision to uphold Section 2(1)(d) of the Pakistan Army Act, which permits military courts to prosecute civilians under the Official Secrets Act, follows a troubling precedent in Pakistan’s legal history. Similar to the 2015 ruling that sanctioned military trials, this verdict raises critical questions about the balance between civilian oversight and military authority, as well as the constitutional rights of citizens.

In December, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that military courts could try civilians in exceptional circumstances to ensure national security. The release of 20 individuals in April, following remissions granted by the Chief of Army Staff, was framed as evidence of leniency. The Court’s directives to provide sentence discounts and transfer eligible convicts to civilian jails sought to balance emergency measures with constitutional principles. However, the continued reliance on military courts highlights the judiciary’s inability to address urgent security concerns within its existing framework.

Critics of the petitions challenging Section 2(1)(d) argue that curtailing military jurisdiction in espionage cases could jeopardize national security. Since 2010, Pakistan has arrested more than 60 individuals for espionage. Proponents of military trials emphasize their efficiency in handling sensitive cases, warning that weakening this mechanism could embolden perpetrators and delay justice, thereby endangering state security.

The Supreme Court’s interim order on military jurisdiction reflects broader support for the military’s role in maintaining stability in Pakistan. With more than 2.26 million cases pending in 2023, the civilian judiciary struggles to provide timely resolutions, creating a vacuum often filled by military courts. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail’s critique of the application of the Pakistan Army Act to civilians underscores the urgent need for judicial reform to ensure that exceptional measures remain just that—exceptional.

To address these systemic challenges, Pakistan’s civilian judicial system must prioritize reforms that ensure fair trials and expeditious justice. Key steps include augmenting the number of judges to handle the growing caseload, implementing technology to streamline case management and reduce delays, combating the pervasive culture of adjournments, and ensuring accountability for procedural inefficiencies.

Equally critical is the fight against corruption, nepotism, and poor case management—issues that erode public confidence in the judiciary. A transparent, efficient, and accessible judicial system is essential for upholding the rights of every citizen and reinforcing the civilian courts as the ultimate arbiters of justice.

The Supreme Court’s decision to permit military courts to adjudicate civilian cases underlines the failings of Pakistan’s judicial and political systems. While such measures may offer a temporary solution to immediate crises, they cannot substitute for a robust and reliable civilian judiciary. Without comprehensive reforms to address inefficiencies and restore trust, Pakistan risks perpetuating a cycle where extraordinary measures become the norm, undermining its democratic foundations and the promise of justice for all.

Abdul Mussawer Safi is an author at various platforms such as Modern Diplomacy, Kashmir Watch, and Eurasia Review. He is pursuing a Bachelor's degree in International Relations from National Defense University. He has a profound interest in world politics, especially in the regional dynamics of South Asia. His academic strengths are critical and SWOT analysis.