ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that although the Pakistan Army Act offers procedural safeguards, it remains constitutionally deficient in its application to civilians because it lacks an independent right of appeal in civilian courts.
In May 2025, a constitutional bench of the apex court, by a 5-2 majority, allowed the trial of civilians in military courts. Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan dissented from the majority view.
The matter stemmed from the prosecution of civilians in military courts over their alleged involvement in the May 9, 2023 riots, which included attacks on army installations following the arrest of PTI founder Imran Khan.
Issuing its detailed judgment on Monday, the court clarified that the provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, were “not inherently unconstitutional.” However, it emphasized that the absence of a statutory right of appeal to the High Courts for civilians required urgent legislative reform.
The bench directed parliament to amend the Army Act and related rules within 45 days, creating an independent appellate forum for civilians convicted under military law for offences specified in Section 2(1)(d)(i), Section 2(1)(d)(ii), and Section 59(4) of the Act.
The court stressed that this legislative intervention was essential to safeguard civilian rights, while also underlining its institutional deference to parliament’s authority.
Drawing upon international standards, including Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the court observed that military tribunals are permissible so long as they guarantee fairness—particularly through an independent appellate process.
Rejecting the claim that such trials breach Article 175(3) of the Constitution, which separates the judiciary from the executive, the court held that military courts operate within their own constitutional and statutory framework. It noted that they neither replace nor diminish the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
Although the Army Act already provides for internal appeals under Sections 133 and 133-B, the court deemed them insufficient for civilians. It stressed that Pakistan’s constitutional development, coupled with its obligations under international law, demands a statutory right of appeal before civilian courts.
The judgment recorded that during hearings, the attorney general sought time to consult the government on introducing such reforms and assured the bench that its recommendations would be duly considered.
It may be recalled that Justices Mandokhail and Afghan, in their earlier dissenting note in May, had rejected the appeals and upheld an October 23, 2023 ruling which declared military trials of civilians unconstitutional by a 4-1 majority. That earlier verdict, authored by a bench led by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, had struck down key provisions of the Army Act.
Subsequently, however, the constitutional bench reconstituted under the 26th Amendment restored those provisions, allowing military trials of civilians to resume—subject now to the requirement of an independent right of appeal.
