SC asks if any army officer faced military trial for Jinnah House 'security breach'

Justice Musarat asked, "If a soldier has a dispute with a civilian in the cantonment, where would the case go?"

Listen to article

Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi of the Supreme Court said that the intrusion of individuals into the Corps Commander House in Lahore on May 9, 2023, was undeniably a "security breach."

In his remarks on Tuesday, Justice Rizvi asked, "Did people manage to reach the Corps Commander's House on May 9? The entry of people into the Corps Commander's House is undoubtedly a security breach."

These comments were made as the court's constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard intra-court appeals challenging the trial of civilians in military courts following the May 9 unrest.

During the hearing, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi remarked that the entry of people into the Corps Commander House on May 9 was a security breach. He questioned whether any military officer had been tried for involvement in the May 9 events.

The counsel for the Ministry of Defence, Khawaja Haris, began presenting his arguments, stating that the individuals prosecuted in the FB Ali case were retired.

Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked, "If a soldier has a dispute with a civilian in a cantonment, where will the case go?" The Defence Ministry's lawyer replied that disputes were different, and the issue of military trials was being overextended.

The Defence Ministry's lawyer further argued that even in times of peace, civilians intervening in military affairs would face trials in military courts. Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi questioned, "There must be a mastermind behind it; who orchestrated the conspiracy?"

Khawaja Haris contended that the trial of the mastermind or conspirator would also take place in military courts, and the trial of civilians had not started suddenly, as the law had been in place since 1967.

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi responded, "Keep in mind that the FB Ali case was from the era of civilian martial law, with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as the civilian martial law administrator."

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi raised an important question, asking the Ministry of Defence's lawyer, "Was there a trial for any military officer involved in the May 9 events? How did people manage to reach the Corps Commander House? Wasn't entering the Corps Commander House a security breach?"

The Defence Ministry's lawyer explained that the charges against the protesters were related to property damage, and no military officer had been charged in the May 9 incident.

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi further inquired whether any resistance had been made when military installations were damaged on May 9. The Defence Ministry’s lawyer responded that complete restraint had been exercised to avoid loss of life.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel questioned, "If a soldier's rifle is stolen, where will the case be filed?" The Defence Ministry’s lawyer replied that the rifle was a soldier's weapon of war.

Justice Musarrat Hilali asked, "If a civilian steals for financial gain, even if their intent is not to disarm the army, where will the trial be held?" The Defence Ministry’s lawyer responded that the circumstances would be considered.

Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar pointed out that the Official Secrets Act lists which crimes fall under military court jurisdiction.

Justice Musarrat Hilali noted that during the May 9 and 10 events, some protesters were unaware of what was happening. The Defence Ministry's lawyer clarified that those unaware were not tried in military courts.

Subsquently, the top court adjourned the hearing of the military courts case until the next day.

Yesterday, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said that several offences are listed under the Army Act, but all apply exclusively to military officers.

Justice Aminuddin urged Khawaja Haris to conclude his arguments by Tuesday. He requested a concise explanation of which cases were transferred to military courts and why.

He added that any questions from the bench would be addressed later.