Justice Mandokhail’s Dissent: A Cry for Civilian Justice

In a time when trust in democratic institutions is more fragile than ever, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail’s bold dissenting note is not just a legal opinion—it is a powerful reminder of what justice truly means in a democratic society. In his 36-page dissent, Justice Mandokhail questioned the decision to try civilians in military courts, a move that he warned could shake the very foundations of justice, democracy, and constitutionalism in Pakistan. “Nowhere in the world do courts martial try terrorism-related civilian cases,” he wrote. And rightly so. Military courts are meant to maintain discipline among soldiers—not to decide the fate of ordinary citizens accused of terrorism or crimes. Instead of strengthening the investigation system, protecting judges and witnesses, and improving the capacity of civil courts, governments have chosen the shortcut of military trials. This, Justice Mandokhail argues, undermines the integrity of the judiciary and sacrifices fundamental rights on the altar of expediency. His words strike at the heart of the issue: justice is not just about punishment—it is about fairness, process, and transparency. When civilians are denied the right to appeal to an independent court, it is not just their fate that is at stake—it is the soul of justice. Pakistan must decide: Do we want a justice system that leans on discipline or one that stands on due process? Justice Mandokhail has made his choice clear. The question is—will the nation listen?