Civilians’ trial in military courts: Punjab also files plea against SC verdict

ISLAMABAD: The Punjab province on Tuesday also filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against its judgment declaring unconstitutional the trials of civilians in military courts and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment passed on October 23, 2023.

Punjab filed an intra-court appeal in the apex court through chief secretary under Section 5 of the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act, 2023.

On October 23, a five-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsen and comprising Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha A Malik, had declared trial of civilians in the military courts as unconstitutional.

The bench held 103 persons and others, who may be placed in relation to the events arising from May 9 and May 10 incidents, could be tried by criminal courts established under the ordinary or special law of the land.

In its appeal, the Punjab government questioned as to whether in absence of any findings viz the question of jurisdiction and maintainability of the petitions ahead of all any questions, renders the impugned order liable to be set aside on this score alone.

It questioned whether the petitioners had made out a case for invoking the extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. “Whether the learned bench was justified in striking down provisions of the Army Act without identifying inconsistency with fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions,” the Punjab government further questioned. It submitted the incidents of May 9, 2023 involve targeted attacks on several military installations and establishments across the country in an organised and coordinated manner. The attacks were neither localised nor isolated, it added. “The events of May 9 indicate a premediated and intentional attempt to undermine the country’s armed forces and inhibit the country’s internal security,” the Punjab government submitted. It contended as a consequence of the events of May 9, several FIRs were registered against the perpetrators, while some of the FIRs do not explicitly mention the provisions of the Army Act. “This court has held that it is the contents of an FIR, and not the mentioning of a particular statutory provision which determines the nature of offences made out,” it said. It submitted trials under the Army Act were not sought to be conducted against all the persons arrested, who were involved in violence on May 9, but only those concerned individuals who strictly fall within the offences stipulated in the Official Secrets Act. “Specifically, only those individuals, who infiltrated a prohibited place or committed other like offences within the meaning of Official Secrets Act, are being prosecuted under the Army Act,” it added.