Federal Cabinet gives nod to amendment in Army Act: sources

The Federal Cabinet on Wednesday held an emergency meeting to discuss and approve amendments in the Army Act, well-placed sources told Geo News. 

The amendments had been sought by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case concerning the extension given to Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa.

It is expected that the government will table the amendments in the ongoing session of parliament.

President Arif Alvi had on Tuesday convened a session of both the upper and lower house of the parliament on a twenty-four hour notice.

Legislation within six months

The apex court in its detailed verdict on December 16 had asked the government to legislate on the matter within six months.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by former chief justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and comprising Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, had heard the case.

In the judgement, the SC had stated that it was now up to the parliament to formulate legislation that will provide "certainty and predictability" to the post of COAS for all times to come.

“We would like to emphasize that this crucial matter of the tenure of COAS and its extension, which has a somewhat chequered history, is before Parliament, to fix for all times to come,” said the detailed judgment.

Earlier in August, Prime Minister Imran Khan had extended General Bajwa’s tenure for three years through a notification. However, the Supreme Court had on November 26 suspended the notification, later ruling that the extension would hold for a six-month period only while parliament decides the matter.

Review petition

Ten days after the Supreme Court's detailed order was issued, the federal government filed a review for leave to appeal under Article 188 of the Constitution against the apex court's judgment.

The government submitted that the impugned judgment is "bad in law and facts" and "completely without jurisdiction, void ab initio and of no legal effect".

In its review petition, the government asked if glaring omissions and patent mistakes had crept into the impugned judgment, violating the law, Constitution and public policy and are floating on the surface.

It further questioned as to “Whether Article 243(3) of the Constitution is independent of Article 240(a) of the Constitution. And whether the Army Regulations (Rules), 1998 (ARR) has constitutional protection under Article 241?”

The government contended that the errors in the impugned judgment "are so manifest that they float on the surface". 

"It is respectfully pointed out that if the said errors had been noticed prior to the rendition of the impugned judgment, this court would have arrived at a different conclusion," it had argued.