IT appears that certain quarters within the state have resolved to continue challenging a Supreme Court order reinstating the right to due process to all citizens, even if doing so draws them into an adversarial conflict with the highest court of the land. Repeated attempts have been made in recent days to `urge` the court to set aside a widely hailed verdict that shut the door on the trial of civilians in military courts. It may be recalled that a five-member bench had unanimously held in October that the trial of all those suspected of involvement in the May 9 riots earlier this year ought to be conducted in criminal courts. Four judges had gone further and struck down certain sections of the Pakistan Army Act for being repugnant to the Constitution. On Monday, a resolution was presented in the Senate urging the Supreme Court to `reconsider` that verdict. The resolution had not been on the agenda and was presented in the closing minutes of a private members` day in the presence of less than a dozen lawmakers. It was deemed as `passed` with just six votes.

It is worth underlining that the judgement in question had not let anyone suspected of involvement in the May 9 rioting off the hook. The Supreme Court had only ruled that they must not be tried by court martial. This means that anyone guilty of an illegal act would still face punishment. Why, then, do the senators who voted for the resolution insist on seeing all punishments delivered by a military hand? If retribution is necessary, it may be sought through the criminal justice system.

What purpose does issuing a statement of no-confidence in the Supreme Court through a Senate resolution serve apart from renewing a clash between institutions? It must also be asked what has become of the 103 detainees after the verdict was announced. It is unfortunate that neither the PTI`s legal team nor the state seem to be taking much interest in their legal status, which has delayed justice. Whatever the suspects` alleged crimes, they are entitled to be presumed innocent until they are found guilty. It is unconscionable to continue depriving citizens of their liberties without trial, so if the state wants justice, it should let the trials proceed as directed by the Supreme Court.