The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that individuals convicted by military courts must be granted the right to appeal. In a significant decision, the apex court directed the federal government and Parliament to legislate within 45 days to establish a proper appellate mechanism.
Detailed Verdict on Military Court Trials
On Monday, the court released its detailed verdict in intra-court appeals related to the trial of civilians by military courts. Justice Aminuddin Khan authored the 68-page majority opinion, while Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar added a 47-page concurring note.
Out of a seven-member constitutional bench, five judges upheld the intra-court appeals, while Justices Jamal Mandokhail and Naeem Afghan issued dissenting opinions. The judgment reaffirmed the legality of military trials for civilians, but emphasized that constitutional guarantees required appeal rights before independent courts.
Direction to Government and Parliament
The ruling instructed the federal government and Parliament to ensure legislation is introduced within 45 days, creating a system where convicted civilians can approach the High Courts for appeals.
The court stressed that the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, though providing certain procedural safeguards, lacks an adequate appellate structure for civilians. Instead of striking down its provisions, the bench called for the establishment of a balanced and fair appellate forum.
Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Decision
-
Restoration of Provisions: The court restored Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) and Section 59(4) of the Pakistan Army Act, overturning Justice Muneeb Akhtar’s October 23, 2023 ruling.
-
Reasoning: Justice Aminuddin Khan explained that Justice Akhtar’s interpretation of Article 8(5) was misplaced, as the provision prevents suspension of fundamental rights but does not automatically nullify the clauses.
-
Bench Composition: Justices Aminuddin Khan, Hasan Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal endorsed Justice Mazhar’s additional note. Justices Mandokhail and Afghan dissented.
Role of Attorney General and Court Proceedings
Throughout the hearings, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan sought additional time to consult the government on introducing an appellate framework. At a May 5 hearing, he admitted that if the court directed, legislation could indeed be drafted and passed in Parliament.
In the final ruling, the Attorney General assured the bench that the government would implement the directive with seriousness.
Broader Implications of the Ruling
The verdict arrived ten months after the formation of the constitutional bench. Out of the 69-page detailed ruling, 62 pages documented the legal arguments, while the remaining pages outlined the reasoning and the orders.
The Supreme Court’s decision provides a balanced approach: it validates military courts’ authority to try civilians under the Army Act while ensuring appeal rights as a constitutional safeguard. This ruling addresses long-standing demands for transparency, fairness, and access to justice in cases tried under military jurisdiction.
By mandating legislation, the court has effectively shifted responsibility to Parliament, ensuring that civilian convicts gain a legitimate forum to challenge military court verdicts. The judgment is likely to reshape Pakistan’s debate on civilian trials in military courts, offering greater legal accountability and protection of fundamental rights.
