The Supreme Court has called on the federal government and Parliament to pass legislation within 45 days to allow an independent right of appeal against convictions by military courts. The apex court stressed that this safeguard is essential to ensure due process and the constitutional right to a fair trial.
This directive came in a decision on a set of Intra-Court Appeals (ICAs) heard by a larger bench of the apex court under Section 5 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.
The appeals challenged the October 23, 2023 judgment in Constitution Petition No 24 of 2023 and related cases. In that ruling, a five-member bench (by a 4-1 majority) had declared certain provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 unconstitutional, and had barred the trial of civilians in military courts following the unrest on May 9–10, 2023.
In its latest order, announced on May 7, 2025, the Supreme Court set aside that earlier judgment and reinstated Section 2(1)(d)(i) & (ii) and Section 59(4) of the Army Act.
These provisions allow civilians to be tried under military law if accused of luring military personnel from duty or committing offences under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, related to defence establishments. However, the court clarified that this authority is limited and not a blanket permission to try civilians in all cases.
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, who authored the 68-page majority judgment, stated: “Although the Army Act includes formal due process protections, the absence of an independent right of appeal to a civilian court makes its application to civilians constitutionally incomplete. The provisions themselves are not unconstitutional, but this gap must be addressed through legislation.”
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, in a concurring opinion, emphasised that an independent right of appeal before a civilian forum is a basic component of due process and the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution.
Until Parliament passes the required amendments, the court said that military court convicts may approach High Courts. These courts would then assess whether due process was followed and if the convictions were supported by adequate evidence. The 45-day deadline was set to “cure the defect” and align military justice with constitutional protections.
The court also reiterated that while peaceful protest and assembly are protected rights, violence, destruction of property, and attacks on military installations cannot be justified under the guise of fundamental freedoms. The May 9–10 incidents, it noted, posed serious threats to national security and required a firm but lawful response.
By restoring the challenged provisions of the Army Act, the Court showed deference to Parliament’s legislative authority but also insisted on necessary legal safeguards. “Law should be saved rather than destroyed,” wrote Justice Mazhar. He added that while the judiciary interprets the law—not writes it—it must still ensure compliance with the Constitution.
