On Saturday, the interim Sindh government clarified that it did not submit an appeal contesting the Supreme Court’s ruling, which deemed the trials of civilians under the Pakistan Army Act 1952 as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Ijazul Ahsan declared Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii), and Section 59(4) of the Pakistan Army Act (PAA), 1952, as ultra vires of the Constitution and devoid of legal effect. The bench ruled that 103 identified individuals, along with others similarly implicated in the events of May 9 and 10, should face trial in criminal courts under the ordinary and/or special laws of the land.
Contrary to reports, the Sindh chief secretary’s filed appeal did not challenge the petitions against Army Act provisions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. It also contended that striking down certain sections of the law contradicted earlier Supreme Court precedents.
A statement from the Chief Minister’s House today asserted that there has been no appeal in the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the “Trial of Civilians before Military Courts” case. It dismissed the notion that the Sindh government sought an appeal for trying civilians in military courts as unfounded.
Yesterday, caretaker governments in the Centre and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa also contested the decision. The federal caretaker government challenged the bench’s composition, arguing that the May 9 incidents constituted organized and coordinated attacks on military installations, intending to undermine the country’s armed forces and internal security.
The caretaker government emphasized the suspension and subsequent restoration of the SC Practice and Procedure Act, 2023, and questioned the constitution of the bench, as it did not adhere to the Act’s provisions. The appeal asserted that petitioners should have first approached the high court, citing grounds such as mala fide, coram non-judice, and jurisdictional challenges.
Additionally, the caretaker government argued that the Pakistan Army Act ensures a fair trial, citing Rule 33 allowing an accused person to correspond with legal advisers without censorship. It also highlighted Article 45, empowering the president to grant pardon, reprieve, or respite, and Article 104, allowing an accused person to object to court members.
The appeal noted the historical concurrent existence of court-martials and district trial courts (civil and sessions courts) since Pakistan’s creation in 1947.
