On 9 May 2023, Pakistan witnessed a day of chaos that would go on to shape its legal and political discourse for years. Supporters of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, enraged by his dramatic arrest, poured onto the streets. But this was not an ordinary protest. Within hours, the demonstrations turned violent. Iconic military installations, symbols of Pakistan’s armed forces including the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi and the Corps Commander’s House in Lahore came under attack. The visuals of civilians storming these high-security areas sent shockwaves through the nation.
In the aftermath, the state responded with an iron hand. Over 100 civilians accused of attacking military sites were swiftly booked. But instead of being tried in civilian courts, their cases were shifted to military courts under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. This move reignited a long-standing debate in Pakistan, should civilians ever be tried in military courts?
Human rights groups, lawyers, and civil society raised alarms. They argued that military courts, shrouded in secrecy and lacking the due process of civilian judiciary, had no place in trying citizens. Their voices found support in the judiciary. In October 2023, the Supreme Court, through a landmark judgment, declared such military trials unconstitutional. For many, it was seen as a victory for civilian supremacy and rule of law.
But the story did not end there. The government, particularly the Ministry of Defence, challenged this ruling, emphasizing the gravity of the May 9 attacks. They argued that assaults on military installations threatened national security at its core, and therefore, warranted exceptional judicial measures.
On 7 May 2025, after months of hearings, a larger bench of the Supreme Court delivered its verdict. In a 5-2 majority decision, the court overturned its own previous ruling. It restored the contentious sections of the Pakistan Army Act, allowing the trial of civilians in military courts for offenses that target the armed forces and national security.
While granting this power back to military courts, the Supreme Court also gave a subtle reminder to the parliament. it urged lawmakers to consider amending the law to introduce an independent right of appeal for civilians convicted in military courts, a safeguard that could offer some balance between security imperatives and fundamental rights.
The decision has polarized opinion. Supporters see it as a necessary step to maintain the sanctity and security of military institutions in turbulent times. Critics, however, fear it signals a worrying tilt towards military overreach and a weakening of civilian judicial authority. For Pakistan, this case has become more than just a legal matter. It reflects the continuing struggle over the balance of power between civil institutions and the military; a theme that has defined much of the country’s history.