Latest news with #PakistanArmyAct
Business Recorder
5 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
SC limits army courts' powers under Constitution
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared that under Article 175 (3) of the Constitution, the courts martial and the forum of appeal under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, have no jurisdiction to prosecute persons accused of clause (d) of the Act. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail on Friday issued his verdict on the intra-court appeals against the Supreme Court judgment on military courts. A seven-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan on May 7 by majority of 5-2 had set aside the SC judgment and restored Section 2 (1) (d) and Section 59 (4) of Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The majority had referred the matter to the government/ parliament for considering and making necessary amendments/ legislation in the Army Act, and allied Rules for providing an independent right of appeal in the High Court, against the conviction awarded to the persons by the court martial/military courts, within a period of 45 days. Two members of the Constitutional Bench, namely, Justice Mandokhail and Justice Naeem, disagreed with the majority judgment, and set aside the convictions and sentences awarded to civilians by the courts martial for 9th May 2023, incidents, and declared them to be without jurisdiction. Justice Mandokhail judgment said that the jurisdiction to try civilians extended to courts martial, especially, in the light of the judgment of FB Ali ceases to exist. The discretion of 'prescribed officer' assigned to him by virtue of Section 94 of the PAA relating to transfer of cases of civilians to courts martial, in respect of civil offences under clause (d), is no more available. However, the courts martial have a limited jurisdiction to the extent of prosecuting members of the Armed Forces for violation of military laws and civil offences. It said that the logic behind the separation of the judiciary from the executive, under Article 175 of the Constitution, is that criminal offences are against the State, whereas, the executive is responsible for administration of the same. A person who breaches a law, is an accused of the State, therefore, the executive having an interest into the matter, cannot itself perform as a judge to punish the accused. It is for this reason, sub-Article (3) of Article 175 of the Constitution mandates that the judiciary shall be separated from the executive, within 14 years of commencement of the Constitution. The judgment noted that upon insertion of clause (d) in subsection (1) of Section 2 and subsection (4) in Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act (PAA), the courts martial comprising serving officers of the Army are prosecuting the persons accused of offences of clause (d). It said that the purpose of adding the said clause in the PAA is that the offences mentioned therein are prejudicial to the interests of the Army. Admittedly, it is a fundamental principle of natural justice that no one ought to be a judge in his own cause or in which he has an interest. This principle is strictly observed to avoid any instance of bias, resulting into injustice. Under such circumstances, the courts martial and the forum of appeal under the PAA, manned or run by the executive, under the command, control and discipline of the Federal Government, cannot be regarded as unbiased, independent or impartial forums. They cannot protect the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens in a criminal charge or for the determination of their rights and obligations. Thus, courts martial and the forum of appeal are violative of Articles 2A, 175 (3) and 227 of the Constitution. The judgment held that the courts martial are administered judicially, not as a part of the judicature erected under Article 175 of the Constitution, but as part of the organisation of the Armed Forces itself. The jurisdiction of courts martial trying military personnel for service offences and civil offences is different from judicial power exercised by ordinary courts for the general offences against the State. The judgment said: 'We have no doubt in our minds that being a special legal framework, the PAA is primarily a disciplinary statute that applies exclusively to a specified group of people; i.e., members of the Armed Forces.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Time of India
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
A promotion after defeat: What's behind Asim Munir's Field Marshal gambit
Asim Munir's grip on power may look firm, but it's anything but secure. In a move steeped more in symbolism than substance, Pakistan's powerful army chief General Asim Munir has been elevated to the rarefied rank of Field Marshal . The announcement, made on Tuesday by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's cabinet, marks the first such promotion in over six decades. Only one other man-military dictator Ayub Khan in 1959-has held the title. But unlike Ayub, who awarded himself the rank amid consolidating his political power, Munir's elevation comes on the heels of a military debacle. A bruising exchange with India, following a deadly attack in Pahalgam, resulted in India striking at least nine Pakistani air bases. The damage, while officially downplayed in Pakistan, left Munir politically exposed. So why the promotion? And why now? Promotion or protection? Officially, the move is being framed as a recognition of 'strategic brilliance.' PM Sharif praised Munir's 'decisive defeat of the enemy,' asserting that under his leadership, the military 'staunchly defended Pakistan's sovereignty.' Munir himself called the promotion 'an honour for the armed forces and the nation.' But few outside Pakistan's tightly controlled media landscape are buying it. 'Field Marshal rank is usually conferred after a military victory,' Tilak Devasher, a seasoned Pakistan watcher, told the Economic Times. 'This may be the first time it has been awarded after a defeat-it seems intended to mask that defeat.' The timing is hard to ignore. Pakistan's public is still reeling from the fallout of the India strikes, and internal dissent within the army is reportedly rising. A widely circulated letter from a group calling itself 'The Guardians of Honour' accused Munir of corruption and military incompetence. The letter reflects what some analysts say is quiet but growing discontent within senior ranks. A shield against scrutiny In a country where generals often enjoy impunity, the Field Marshal title may serve more as legal and political armor than as a mark of distinction. Some analysts see the promotion as a pre-emptive move to insulate Munir from possible court martial or early retirement, the ET report said. Legal experts point out that the Pakistani constitution makes no mention of the rank. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025: Steel Suppliers From Mexico At Lowest Prices (Take A Look) Steel Suppliers | search ads Search Now Undo Nor does the Pakistan Army Act. Instead, the promotion was reportedly made under Rule 199A of the Army Regulations (1998), which states that a general may be promoted to Field Marshal 'without regard to seniority or any specific appointment.' In essence, the move raises Munir above the military's existing command structure-and, potentially, above accountability. All ceremony, no strategy Though technically ceremonial, the rank carries potent political meaning. In Pakistan's civil-military power dynamic, optics often matter more than operational command. 'Munir is now very much in the driving seat as the pivot of the power structure,' said Senator Mushahid Hussain Syed, former chair of the Senate defense committee. 'Given the weakness and divisions amongst the civilian politicians... all the mainstream political forces were convinced that the road to Islamabad lies through Rawalpindi.' That reality is reflected in the government's simultaneous decision to extend the term of air chief marshal Zaheer Ahmed Babar Sidhu-his second extension. Sidhu was credited with executing Operation Bunyanun Marsoos, Pakistan's retaliatory air campaign against India's Operation Sindoor . Still, in a tightly managed information environment, the military's version of events prevails. State media declared a historic victory. Social media was flooded with hashtags like #PakistanStandsUnited. Meanwhile, dissenting voices-journalists, analysts, even former officers-vanished from screens. The big picture: The war at home Munir's rise comes at a fragile moment for Pakistan. The ceasefire with India has held for now. But underneath the diplomatic calm lies a volatile domestic landscape: Security turmoil: Over 3,700 terror incidents have claimed nearly 3,900 lives in the past 17 months, according to ISPR figures-pointing to a deteriorating internal security climate, especially in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Political unrest: The jailing of former PM Imran Khan and suppression of PTI supporters has fueled an undercurrent of defiance. Critics accuse Munir of leveraging the Pahalgam terror incident to consolidate power. Economic fragility: With rising inflation, IMF-dependency, and India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan's economy teeters on the edge. The military's growing political role is being scrutinized for exacerbating the instability. Observers note that Munir is not merely defending national borders-he is navigating a labyrinth of domestic vulnerabilities that could unravel his authority. His use of the two-nation theory and religious rhetoric to frame the India conflict was seen by critics as an attempt to rally the nation behind him. But the strategy may have backfired. 'Instead of unifying the nation, the gambit drew attention to Pakistan's widening fractures,' write analysts Ashok Behuria and Uttam Sinha in a joint commentary in the TOI . The ghost of Imran Khan Munir's political calculus also includes a rising challenge from behind bars: Former Prime Minister Imran Khan. His PTI party has labeled Munir a 'warmonger and coward,' accusing him of dragging Pakistan into war to consolidate power. Khan's moral authority, paradoxically strengthened by his imprisonment, continues to mobilize his base. Sharif's civilian government, already seen as beholden to the military, risks further erosion of legitimacy. As one viral meme put it: 'War fought by Airforce. Army Chief promoted. Army's only contribution-taking videos of tanks and hiding in bunkers.' What's next Munir's elevation to Field Marshal is not about military strategy-it's about political survival. It's about shoring up a fractured command structure, muffling dissent, and projecting strength in the face of growing weakness. Though the promotion may temporarily strengthen Munir's position, it doesn't erase the challenges ahead: Internal threats persist, from Baloch separatists to the resurgent Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan. PTI's political comeback looms, with Khan's moral leverage growing even from prison. Civil-military tension could intensify, especially if the rank is seen as an attempt to silence dissent or circumvent institutional checks. There's also talk of Munir eventually transitioning into a political role-possibly even as president. Ayub Khan set the precedent. In Pakistan's fragile democracy, few would be surprised if history rhymed again.
Express Tribune
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Military court convicts denied sentence relief
The Peshawar High Court has dismissed a set of writ petitions seeking the benefit of Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code for convicts sentenced by military courts. In its detailed eight-page verdict, the court ruled that the convicts were tried and sentenced under a special law - the Pakistan Army Act — and had already been granted the benefit in question. Therefore, the petitions were found to be without merit. The judgment was delivered by a two-member bench comprising Justice Naeem Anwar and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal, which heard 25 separate writ petitions, including one filed by Gul Muhammad Khan. The petitioners argued that their relatives were tried under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and handed various terms of imprisonment. In one case, it was claimed that Riaz Ali, a relative of the petitioner, was arrested on April 30, 2013, and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment by a military court. Despite having completed his sentence, he has allegedly remained in prison for over 11 years — a violation of his fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. The petitioner contended that since no other criminal case was pending against Riaz Ali, his continued detention was unlawful and unconstitutional, violating Articles 9, 13, 14, and 25 of the Constitution. The petitioners' legal counsel also raised the question of whether Section 382-B, which mandates deduction of pre-trial custody from the total sentence, had been properly applied. While acknowledging that the benefit of Section 382-B was, in principle, granted, the lawyers argued that the authorities had failed to release the convicts even after completion of their sentences. They cited two previous cases in which relief was granted to similarly situated individuals. On the other hand, Additional Attorney General Sanaullah submitted that the sentences were imposed under a special law, the Army Act, which takes precedence over general laws. He affirmed that Section 382-B had been applied and that the convicts were being dealt with in accordance with the Army Act. Court-appointed amicus curiae Advocate Shumail Ahmed Butt argued that under Articles 199(3) and 199(5) of the Constitution, the High Court lacks jurisdiction in such matters. He also pointed out that the cases cited by the petitioners were not adequately argued and did not set binding precedent. In its written verdict, the court held that the convicts were lawfully tried under the Army Act, a special statute, and that their sentences commenced from the date of confirmation by the military court. After reviewing various precedents, the bench concluded that Section 382-B had indeed been applied appropriately. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
Business Recorder
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Trying times
EDITORIAL: Sadly but unsurprisingly, a seven-member Constitutional Bench, by a margin of 5-2, of the Supreme Court, established under the controversial 26th Amendment, has restored key provisions of the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) to allow for the trial of civilians in military courts. The bench was hearing an intra-court appeal filed by the government seeking review of its October 2023, 5-1 verdict. The majority judgement's primary concern, in the present instance, did not appear to be the full panoply of fundamental rights enshrined and envisaged in the Constitution. Though it emphasised in a rather contradictory assertion the need for appellate oversight, saying the right of appeal before an 'independent forum', is basic to the doctrine of due process and the right to a fair trial under Article 10 of the Constitution. The majority judgement also said the limitation period for filing an appeal in a high court will begin once amendments to the PAA are notified. This means if the executive does not make the necessary amendments, the civilian suspects of May 9 events, including founder of the main opposition party the PTI, Imran Khan, won't have the right to appeal. The whole idea of the rule of law has been turned on its head. It is worth recalling that back in 2015 even those who had taken up arms against the state could not be tried in military courts for the simple but powerful reason the Constitution did not allow it, and the witnesses were too afraid to testify against them in civilian anti-terrorism courts. Hence, to make that possible a constitutional amendment was enacted with a two-year sunset clause, at the conclusion of which another year's extension was sought by the powers that be and given by parliament. Also, those convicted by military tribunals had the right to go into appeal before relevant high courts, which is missing in the present instance. Enemies of the state who had killed thousands of Pakistanis, both civilians and soldiers, had a better protection than regular people accused of having vandalised military facilities. In forfeiting their right to a fair trial, the Constitutional Bench has drawn sharp criticism from the legal fraternity. The Karachi Bar Association (KBA) immediately issued a statement, expressing its concern over different aspects of the verdict, emphasising that it is not merely a judicial misstep; it is a clear abdication of the judiciary's constitutional role as a check on the executive's powers. Furthermore, said the KBA, no constitutional interpretation can justify military trial of a civilian, and that such trials are inherently incompatible with constitutional guarantees, international law, and the universally recognised right to a fair trial. Other bar associations, opposition parties, and civil society groups, too, are likely to refuse to accept what the KBA described as 'judicial surrender' before 'creeping authoritarianism.' Unfortunately, we have been there time and again since the days of chief justice Muhammad Munir in the 50s, leading to never-ending political crises. It seems the people are no longer willing to let the rule of law be undermined. Things probably will get worse before they get better. Last but not least, that Justice Ayesha A. Malik has lodged a formal complaint to CJP about the non-publication of her dissenting order in the reserved seats case is indeed a development that has certainly added to the seemingly widespread concerns about the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court's verdict. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
09-05-2025
- Politics
- First Post
How Pakistan SC empowered Asim Munir, man who triggered tensions with India
Against the backdrop of tensions between India and Pakistan rising, the Pakistan Supreme Court just backed Army chief General Asim Munir. Pakistan's apex court, in a 5-2 ruling, has allowed civilians to be tried by military courts. But why has the court strengthened Munir's hand? And why does it matter? read more India and Pakistan are at each other's throats. After the Pahalgam attack, India launched Operation Sindoor – carrying out strikes on terror bases in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Ever since the two countries have accused each other of sending drones and missiles across the Line of Control. Now, the Pakistan Supreme Court may have just made things worse. The apex court of the neighbouring country just backed Army chief General Asim Munir, according to several media reports. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A speech of Munir's comments backing the two-nation theory recently went viral on social media. But what happened? How did Pakistan's Supreme Court rule? And what did Munir say? What happened? As per Hindustan Times, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that civilians can be tried by military courts. The apex court in doing so overturned an October 2023 judgment that called civilians being tried by the military 'unconstitutional." The seven-judge constitution bench of the court led by Justice Aminuddin Khan on May 7 cleared the way for those involved in anti-Pakistan Army protests in May 2023 to be tried by the military. As per News18, lakhs of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) members in May 2023 had taken to the streets to protest the arrest of ex-prime minister Imran Khan. Imran, who has been in jail for two years, had accused Munir of ordering his arrest in a corruption case. The demonstrators, blaming Munir for the arrest of their party leader, had swamped military institutions. As per News18, nearly PTI 1,000 workers had been arrested – many without evidence, they claimed. In October 2023, Pakistan's apex court had ruled that the civilians could not be tried by the military. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, several petitioners including law enforcement agencies appealed the Supreme Court's decision. Imran, who has been in jail for two years, had accused Asim Munir of ordering his arrest in a corruption case. Pakistan's court in a 5-2 decision overturned the previous ruling. The court also restored three parts of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, which had been struck down in 2023. As per Hindustan Times, Justice Aminuddin Khan ordered the government to amend the Army Act in less than two months to allow those convicted by the military courts the chance to appeal in a high court. Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan disagreed with the majority. The court had reserved its judgement on Monday. Why this matters The decision deals yet another blow to democracy in Pakistan – which since Independence has seen long periods of military rule. It also concentrates even more power in the hands of the Pakistan Army chief – which has historically been the most powerful position in Pakistan – who many believe is responsible for the standoff between India and Pakistan 'With this shield in his hand, the increasingly unpopular general can now worry a little less about internal dissent,' a piece in India Today noted. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Munir was formerly head of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) during the Pulwama attack. Experts say India needs to be careful when dealing with Munir. An analyst told India Today, 'This is not an asymmetric war like Israel vs Hamas or Azerbaijan vs Armenia. This is between two of the most professional armies who are equally matched and have nuclear capabilities. Anything we do, we should expect him to retaliate. Controlling the escalation ladder of conflict will not be easy. Judging by Munir's recent actions, we should be prepared for unpredictability and surprises, including him initiating something and blaming us for it.' 'Munir would have gamed all options beforehand and is moving with greater caution than normal. We need to carefully gauge him, as he has extensive intelligence and operational exposure. It's like a game of chess in which we need to think 10 steps ahead of him along with our own contingency plans and punches. So, we have to keep second-guessing his moves till we have some tentative answers at least. Specialists also need to do a detailed psychological profiling based on his behaviour and statements,' another strategist added. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD PTI slams ruling As per India Today, the PTI slammed the ruling as a 'weaponised decision'. 'The decision has been given on a day when the purportedly installed regime and the establishment want to build National Cohesion,' Omar Ayub Khan, a member of the National Assembly (Parliament) from the PTI, was quoted as saying by Dawn. Haleem Adil Sheikh, PTI's chief of Sindh province, added 'Dropping the military courts verdict amid a war-like situation is a deliberate move to mask injustice'. Reena Omer, South Asian legal advisor to the International Commission of Jurists, Reena Omer, called the decision 'terrible, though perhaps expected'. 'A pity the highest court of the land is on board with such militarisation of justice in the country,' Omer wrote on X. What Munir said Munir in April made an extremely inflammatory speech at the Overseas Pakistanis Convention in Islamabad. 'You have to narrate Pakistan's story to your children so that they don't forget it when our forefathers thought we were different from Hindus in every possible aspect of life. Our religion is different, our customs are different, our traditions are different, our thoughts are different, our ambitions are different, that's where the foundation of the two-nation theory was laid. We are two nations, we are not one nation," Munir, endorsing the two-nation theory championed by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Pakistani Army Chief General Asim Munir. Photo: YouTube/ISPR Munir made the speech in the presence of Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. 'Because of that, our forefathers mounted that incessant struggle to create this country. Our forefathers, they have sacrificed immensely, and we have sacrificed a lot for the creation of this country, and we know how to defend it,' Munir said. 'My dear brothers and sisters and sons and daughters, please don't forget the story of Pakistan, and don't forget to narrate this story of Pakistan to your next generation, so that their bond with Pakistan never weakens, whether it is the third generation, or the fourth generation, or the fifth generation, they know what Pakistan is for them,' he added. Munir in the same speech referred to Kashmir as Pakistan's 'jugular vein.' Indian intel agencies said they were looking into whether the Pakistan Army chief's speech played any part in causing the Pahalgam attack. 'Our stance is absolutely clear, it was our jugular vein, it will be our jugular vein, we will not forget it. We will not leave our Kashmiri brothers in their heroic struggle,' Munir said, STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Intelligence officials say Munir's words and his focus on the 'differential treatment' of Muslims and Hindus may have encouraged militant groups to act. Munir had also warned of a 'swift and notched-up response' to any Indian action following the Pahalgam attack. MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal responded to Munir's remarks by saying, 'How can anything foreign be in a jugular vein? This is a Union Territory of India. Its only relationship with Pakistan is the vacation of illegally occupied territories by that country.' With inputs from agencies
