Attack on military installations on May 9th: SC questions ‘identification’ of culprits

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court questioned how those persons, involved in attacking the military installations on 9th May, were identified.

A seven-member SC Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Thursday, heard intra-court appeals (ICAs) against the apex court’s decision on trial of civilians by military courts.

Faisal Siddiqui, representing the members of the civil society, then said according to their judgment a person become accused after framing of charges, adding the transfer of civilians’ custody is the violation of Section 549 of Code of Criminal Procedure and sections 29, 30 and 32 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Accused tried by military courts: SC judge says won’t allow further trial

Faisal Siddiqui argued that if 103 persons not charged by the magistrate before handing their custody to army authorities, then the transfer is illegal and assuming of jurisdiction by the military court is also unlawful.

During the proceeding, Faisal read an FIR registered against a few accused, who were arrested in Rawalpindi for attacking the General Headquarters (GHQ).

Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi said how the persons mentioned in the FIR were identified, adding that some of the rioters did not enter into the GHQ, but were protesting outside. Faisal informed that the accused whose custody was handed over to the military were identified through CCTV footages.

Justice Amin then inquired how many rioters were handed over to the military authorities, noting that there were many persons protesting on that day (9th May). Faisal replied he has no figure.

Justice Rizvi said in many criminal cases charges cannot be framed against accused for many years as they do not appear before court, or in many hearings their lawyers do not come, and some time the accused absconds. He said due to not framing of charges the court seized with the matter cannot proceed.

Faisal contended that if a person becomes an accused on the basis of an FIR then there was no need to file application before the magistrate for transfer of custody, adding the police should then be empowered to give custody of civilians against whom only FIR is registered.

He submitted that there are many judgments of superior courts where civilians were arrested directly by the army. However, the courts have declared such arrest unlawful in habeas copus applications. He then cited a Lahore High Court (LHC) judgment which had declared arrest of famous poet, Ahmed Faraz, by military authority for writing a poem, which was considered to incite the public against the Martial Law. However, the LHC did not accept the stance and ordered to release him.

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that the complaint against Faraz was lodged by Saifuddin Saif, lyrist and poet. He said Ahmed Faraz in his application stated that he did not write that poem.

Justice Naeem asked the counsel that you are not challenging the vires of the Army Act, but want the court to declare the transfer of custody of 103 accused, illegal. You are arguing the merit of the case, and suppose if tomorrow the Court strikes down Section 2(1)(d) of Pakistan Army Act, 1952, then all of your arguments would go waste. He advised him; “Why don’t you reserve arguments for later stage of appeals [against the order].”

Faisal Siddiqui told the bench that he had given menu (options), and it was up to the Court which option it chooses. “I will agree with any of the two solutions, if those are for the benefit of the accused.” “I adopt the arguments of the other respondent counsels on the vires of the law. It is upto the bench whether it agree with my arguments or the arguments of other respondent counsels.”

Justice Mazhar told the counsel: “In my opinion your arguments will not prejudice the accused cases as the matter is not sub judice.”

The court adjourned the case until Monday. Faisal Siddiqui would continue his arguments on the next date.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025