Split verdict

In a much-awaited verdict, a full bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, presided over by the chief justice, has upheld the controversial 21st Amendment under which military courts were set up till February 2017 in the country to try terrorists and militants. The decision taken by parliament to amend the constitution and set up the courts came in the wake of the horrendous attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar which left around 150 people dead, most of them children. The 17-member full bench was also hearing petitions challenging the appointments of judges as laid out by the 18th Constitutional Amendment. This was approved as well in a decisive 14-3 verdict. The question of the 21st Amendment appears to have led to a more strenuous argument among the judges with an 11-6 verdict finally delivered in favour of the military courts. The questions facing the full bench, the short order of which was released on Wednesday, was essentially whether the constitution had a structure, whether this structure could be changed, and if so whether the structure could be changed through amendments and whether parliament had the right to make such amendments. There were 20 petitions placed before the bench challenging the military courts. Lawyers arguing against them held that they went against the constitution and defeated the mechanisms laid down within it for justice to be delivered.
The arguments will rage on even after the verdict. On the one side, there is the view that military courts can settle cases more quickly and help us effectively battle terrorists. The monster of militancy that we face is no doubt a huge one. It is for these reasons that the prime minister on Thursday morning hailed the SC verdict as a victory and said Pakistan had entered a new and important phase. The developments during this phase will need to be watched before any final opinion can emerge on the military courts. There are also those, including the bar association, which challenge the courts and feel that views delivered by men in uniform can never be just and that proper judicial procedure is unlikely to be followed. There is also the question of what role the constitution lays down for various institutions in the country and whether this set of lines drawn up by the document can be stepped over. The first verdict delivered by a military court in February this year, ordering a death sentence for six men and imprisonment for another was stayed by the regular courts. It is somewhat disturbing that we knew so little about who the men sentenced to death were or how the proceedings took place. But for now, the military courts are to stay. What impact they will have on curbing terrorism is open to question. What is logical is to keep in mind that courts themselves cannot change ground realities. The government must not step back from its own responsibilities of building a more tolerant society through various measures simply by handing over one important aspect of terrorism to the military. It is also important that a wider view be taken of the matter and steps put in place to draw all actions against militants closer together so that we can truly move towards a society free of the threat we live under today.