SC directs govt to legislate on civilians right of appeal under military trials

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday issued a detailed judgement on intra-court appeals against military trials, noting that while the Army Act contains a basic framework, it lacks a proper appellate forum for civilians.

The court directed the government to enact legislation within 45 days to ensure an independent right of appeal.

The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench had allowed the intra-court appeals on May 7 and struck down the earlier five-judge verdict that nullified military trials.

Justice Aminuddin Khan authored the 68-page judgement, with Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar adding a 47-page concurring note, which was endorsed by Justice Hasan Rizvi, Justice Mussarat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal. However, Justice Jamal Mandokhail and Justice Naeem Afghan wrote dissenting notes.

In its ruling, the apex court granted those convicted by military courts the right to appeal and directed the government to legislate within 45 days to formalise this right.

Civil-military trial: SC reserves verdict, decision to be announced this week

The court clarified that the intent was not to strike down the Army Act in its entirety, as it contains a basic procedure, but stressed that civilians convicted by military courts must have access to independent appeals in high courts.

The judgement added that during the case hearings, the Attorney General repeatedly sought time to obtain government instructions on the right of appeal. Even during the final hearing on May 5, he maintained that legislation could be enacted if directed by the court. The Attorney General assured that the government would take the court’s order seriously.

SC debates 1973 Constitution’s provisions in military trials case

The court further observed that without the right of independent appeal, the Army Act’s provisions are constitutionally incomplete for civilians. It said legislative intervention was necessary to fill this gap, as trials under the Army Act were kept outside the framework of fundamental rights.

The judgement stressed that military trials must also adhere to the standards laid down under Article 10-A, and clarified that such trials are not inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers. Article 175(3) does not negate the existence of military courts, the court held, adding that the earlier five-member bench erred in concluding otherwise.