Supreme Court Allows Military Trials of Civilians: Intra Court Appeals Accepted by Majority in 2025 Verdict.
سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ: سویلینز کا ملٹری ٹرائل آئینی قرار
تحریر: LegalHelp1
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے 7 مئی 2025 کو ایک تاریخی فیصلے میں 9 مئی 2023 کے واقعات میں ملوث سویلین افراد کے ملٹری ٹرائل کو آئینی قرار دیتے ہوئے سابق فیصلہ کالعدم کر دیا۔ یہ فیصلہ 5 ججوں کی اکثریت سے سنایا گیا، جب کہ 2 ججوں نے اختلافی نوٹ دیا۔
پس منظر
9 مئی 2023 کو ملک بھر میں فوجی تنصیبات پر حملوں کے متعدد واقعات پیش آئے، جن میں کور کمانڈر ہاؤس لاہور، جی ایچ کیو، ایئربیس میانوالی اور آئی ایس آئی دفاتر شامل تھے۔ ان واقعات میں ملوث سویلین افراد کے خلاف پاکستان آرمی ایکٹ 1952 کے تحت کارروائی کا فیصلہ کیا گیا، جسے بعدازاں مختلف درخواست گزاروں نے سپریم کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا۔
عدالت کا فیصلہ
عدالت عظمیٰ نے انٹرا کورٹ اپیلیں منظور کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ:
1. پاکستان آرمی ایکٹ کی دفعات بحال کی جاتی ہیں جنہیں پہلے غیر آئینی قرار دیا گیا تھا۔
2. آرٹیکل 8(5) کے تحت فوجی قوانین آئین کے بنیادی حقوق پر حاوی ہوتے ہیں، لہٰذا سویلینز کے خلاف ملٹری ٹرائل آئینی ہے۔
3. آرٹیکل 10-A کے تحت فیئر ٹرائل کا حق تسلیم کیا گیا، اور عدالت نے حکومت کو ہدایت دی کہ 45 دن میں اپیل کا باقاعدہ نظام وضع کیا جائے۔
4. فوجی عدالتوں کے ٹرائل کی نگرانی اور فیصلوں کے خلاف ہائی کورٹ میں اپیل کا حق ضروری قرار دیا گیا۔
5. عدالت نے یہ بھی کہا کہ اگرچہ قانون میں فیئر ٹرائل کا ذکر ہو، مگر اس کا عملی نفاذ ضروری ہے، جس کی نگرانی سول عدالتیں کریں گی۔
عدالت نے آئینی حیثیت کیوں تسلیم کی؟
قانونی استثنیٰ: عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ پاکستان آرمی ایکٹ، آئین کے آرٹیکل 8 کے تابع نہیں کیونکہ آرٹیکل 8(5) فوجی قوانین کو اس شق سے مستثنیٰ کرتا ہے۔
سلامتی کے تقاضے: فوجی تنصیبات پر حملے ملکی سلامتی سے متعلق جرم ہیں جن کے لیے خصوصی قوانین ضروری ہیں۔
فیئر ٹرائل کی شرط: عدالت نے آئینی تحفظ برقرار رکھتے ہوئے ہدایت دی کہ کسی بھی سزا یافتہ سویلین کو ہائی کورٹ میں اپیل کا حق ضرور دیا جائے۔
اختلافی نوٹ
جسٹس جمال خان مندوخیل اور جسٹس نعیم اختر افغان نے اس فیصلے سے اختلاف کرتے ہوئے اسے بنیادی حقوق اور عدلیہ کی آزادی کے خلاف قرار دیا۔
حکومتی اقدامات کی ہدایت
سپریم کورٹ نے حکومت کو ہدایت دی ہے کہ:
45 دن میں پاکستان آرمی ایکٹ میں ترمیم کی جائے تاکہ سویلینز کو اپیل کا واضح حق حاصل ہو۔
اپیل کا اختیار ہائی کورٹ کو دیا جائے تاکہ عدالتی نگرانی ممکن ہو۔
Must read Judgement
Supreme Court Allows Military Trials of Civilians: Intra Court Appeals Accepted by Majority in 2025 Verdict
سویلینز کا فوجی عدالتوں میں ملٹری ٹرائل۔انٹرا کورٹ اپیلیں 2-5 کی اکثریت سے منظور کرنے کافیصلہ
Majority Short Order dated 07.05.2025 in Intra Court Appeals in the Military Trial cases under Pakistan Army Act, 1952.
After providing extensive opportunity of hearing to all concerned and for reasons to be recorded later, subject to augmentation and explication in detail, the aforesaid ICA(s) are allowed by majority of 5 (comprising J. Amin-ud-Din Khan, J. Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J. Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. Musarrat Hilali, and J. Shahid Bilal Hassan) in the following terms:
i. The impugned judgment is set aside and as a consequence thereof, subclauses (i) & (ii) of Clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and subsection (4) of Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 are restored. With due deference to the impugned judgment, such provisions in our view could not be declared ultra vires on the anvil or bedrock of sub-article 5 of Article 8 of the Constitution which only provides that the rights conferred by the said Chapter (Fundamental Rights) shall not be suspended except as expressly provided by the Constitution, thus it does not control or preponderate upon the rigors of sub-article 3 of the said Article. There was, in fact, no question with regard to the suspension of any fundamental right involved within the sphere of influence or realm of Article 233 of the Constitution.
ii. According to statistics shared by the learned AGP during the course of his arguments, 39 military installations, Army works/establishments at various places (23 in Punjab, 08 in KPK, 07 in Sindh and 01 in Baluchistan) including GHQ, Core Commander House, Lahore (which is also a camp office), Mianwali Air Base, and ISI Offices/set up in Sargodha, Faisalabad, and Rawalpindi were targeted/attacked on 09.05.2023. He further argued that all attacks were made by design and occurred on one and the same day, within a span of 4 to 6 hours, across the country. According to him, these incidents left an indelible mark and represented the darkest moments in the nation’s history. As a result of these events, several First Information Reports (FIRs) were lodged at various Police Stations. He further argued that on account of dereliction of duty, stern disciplinary actions were also taken against several army officials. Additionally, the attack on the Core Commander House, Lahore, rendered the command dysfunctional for at least 4 to 5 hours, creating a highly dangerous situation. All fundamental rights enshrined and envisaged under the Constitution are subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the law. Peaceful assembly, association, or public demonstration/protest within the bounds and precincts of reasonable restrictions imposed by the law is not prohibited but without violating or breaking the law, or taking the law in one’s hands.
iii. The learned counsel representing the respondents never refuted or denied the factum of such incidents but they candidly and forthrightly argued, from beginning to end, that though the accused/convicts have committed offences, they should be tried by Anti-Terrorism Courts and not through Court Martial or by Military Courts, as this violates the right to a fair trial as envisioned under Article 10-A of the Constitution, and under sub-article (3) of Article 175 of the Constitution, Military Courts cannot exercise judicial functions in the cases of civilians (the argument with regard to the applicability of sub-article (3) of Article 175 of the Constitution was also raised in the original proceedings but not approved or accepted in the majority impugned judgment). Whereas, the learned counsel for the appellants maintained that due to the striking down of the law in question, no action can be taken even against the hardcore criminals and terrorists involved in the attacks on army installations and/or against the martyrdom of innocent civilians and personnel of the armed forces and even in the present situation, no action can be taken in the national security and interest against the persons accused of espionage or spies of enemy countries for the offences mentioned in sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.
iv. No doubt, all such miscreants, lawbreakers, and perpetrators of such incidents are liable to be punished on proving their guilt, subject to right of appeal against their conviction. An independent right of appeal before an independent forum is also a basic limb of the doctrine of due process and the right to a fair trial, as enshrined and envisioned under Article 10-A of the Constitution. Various provisions were vigorously highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellants to demonstrate that under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 (“Army Act”), and the Rules framed thereunder, the right to a fair trial and due process is fully protected and safeguarded and the process of trial under the Army Act is compliant with the recognized principles of criminal justice as held in the cases of Brig. (Retd.) F. B. Ali (PLD 1975 SC 506), Shahida Zahir Abbasi (PLD 1996 SC 632), and the judgment rendered in the case of District Bar Rawalpindi (PLD 2015 SC 401). It was further averred that clause 2 (d) was inserted into the Army Act vide Section 2 of the Defence Services Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1967, which is protected under Article 268 of the Constitution. The learned AGP also asserted that the right to a fair trial, as enshrined under Article 10-A of the Constitution, and due process of law, was available to all such accused persons of the 9th and 10th May incidents, despite the exactitudes of Article 8 (3) of the Constitution.
v. In the case of Shahida Zahir Abbasi (supra), it was held that “the rules of procedure applicable for trial of a person in a criminal case before a Military Court do not violate any accepted judicial principle governing trial of an accused person (yc) the procedure prescribed for trial before Military Courts is in no way contrary to the concept of a fair trial in a criminal case”. Likewise, the judgment in plurality rendered in the District Bar Association case (supra) held with reference to Article 8 of the Constitution that the “Court Martial are constituted and established under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and jurisdiction thereupon is also conferred by the said Act. Their existence and validity is acknowledged and accepted by the Constitution in so far as they deal with the members of the Armed Forces and other persons subject to the said Act. This has not been disputed before us”. In the same case, the plurality judgment also refers to the case of Col. (R) Muhammad Akram v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another (PLD 2009 FSC 36), where the “provisions of the Pakistan Army Act were scrutinized by the Federal Shariat Court yc and generally passed muster”.
vi. In our view, the provisions merely accentuating the right to a fair trial and due process in any statute and its actual application and proper implementation during the trial are two distinct features and situations. If an independent right of appeal is provided in the High Court for challenging the original order or internal departmental appellate order of conviction, then obviously, the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction as conferred under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, may examine whether an equal and fair opportunity to defend the charges was afforded to the convict, whether sufficient evidence was available to substantiate the charges, and whether proper procedure in the trial was followed in letter and spirit.
vii. It is expansively evident from the impugned judgment, including the additional note, that during the original proceedings, the learned AGP, time and again, requested for time to seek instructions from the government on whether an independent right of appeal may be provided to the persons not otherwise subject to the Army Act, who are accused of the offences of (i) seducing or attempting to seduce any person subject to this Act from his duty or allegiance to Government, or (ii) having committed in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Pakistan, an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 as provided under clause (d) of Section 2 (1) of Army Act, and even in the concluding session on 5th May, 2025, the learned AGP reiterated that if this Constitutional Bench refers the matter to the Government/Parliament to amend the law and create a window of an independent right of appeal over and above the provision of appeal already provided under Section 133-B of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, that will be respected and considered seriously. In support of this contention, he also cited the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Jurist Foundation versus Federal Government (PLD 2020 SC 48).
viii. While restoring the provisions of Army Act, that were struck down by means of the impugned judgment in the original proceedings before this Court, we, in unison, sensitize the need of legislative changes, which will also be compliant to the requirements laid down under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) for maintaining and preserving the constitutional and societal norms in the existing legal framework. Therefore, the matter is referred to the Government/Parliament for considering and making necessary amendments/legislation in the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and allied Rules within a period of 45 days in order to provide an independent right of appeal in the High Court against the conviction awarded to the persons by the Court Martial/Military Courts under sub-clauses (i) & (ii) of Clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, read with sub-section (4) of Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.
ix. Subject to clause (viii) of this Short Order, the limitation period for filing an appeal by the convicts against their conviction before the High Courts shall be reckoned and applied from the date of notifying the amendments under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and their conviction shall be subject to the final outcome/decision in appeal by the High Court.
x. All pending Civil Misc. Applications are also disposed of accordingly.
xi. It is clarified that the individual cases/writ petitions, if pending or filed in the High Courts for challenging the vires of orders passed by the Anti-Terrorism Courts, allowing the transfer of case/custody of any accused to the Military Court for trial, shall be decided by such Courts on its own merits.
xii. Office is directed to transmit the copy of this Short Order to the learned Attorney General, Secretary General National Assembly, Secretary Ministry of Law & Justice, Secretary Ministry of Defence, and Secretary Law & Justice Commission, Government of Pakistan, for ensuring compliance.
Order of the Court
By majority of 5 (comprising Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan), the Intra Court Appeal No.5/2023 and other connected appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment, dated 23.10.2023, rendered by the learned Bench of this Court in Constitution Petition Nos.24, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 30 of 2023 is set aside. Whereas, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan dismissed the aforesaid Intra Court Appeals.
I.C.A.5/2023
Shuhada Forum, Balochistan through its Patron in Chief, Nawabzada Jamal Raisani, Quetta Cantt and others v. Justice (R) Jawwad S. Khawaja and others
(1) Mr. Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan
(2) Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
(3) Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
(4) Ms. Justice Musarrat Hilali
(5) Mr. Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan
07-05-2025