The defence ministry and the federal government on Friday challenged the Supreme Court decision declaring the trial of civilians in military courts to be void. In addition to the two petitions filed by the Sindh government, petitions have also been filed by the provincial governments of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, and Sindh, bringing the total number to five.
The petition by the Ministry of Defence asks the court to overturn the decision handed down by a five-member bench on October 23 and allow civilians to be tried in military courts.
The government’s petition has also pleaded that the sections of the Official Secrets Act and Army Act struck down by the court’s decision be restored.
The petition argued that striking down parts of the Official Secrets Act and the Army Act would cause ‘irreversible damage’.
Additionally, the petition has argued that the petitions heard by the five-member bench were not admissible in the first place.
The federal government’s petition, filed through Attorney General Mansoor Awan, argues that the bench that heard the petition against military courts did not fulfill conditions laid out under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure bill.
A full-court bench of the court has already ruled that the SC Practice and Procedure bill is in line with the Constitution through a majority decision.
Also, read this
Has SC judgement on military courts given ‘blanket immunity’ to civilians?
What are the five standards for military trial of civilians?
Apart from the two petitions from the center, petitions were also filed by provincial governments in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa asking the court to overturn the judgement banning trials of civilians in military courts.
Sindh filed a similar petition on Thursday.
The apex court did not properly evaluate the law and the facts, the Sindh government pleaded.
On October 23, a five-member SC bench declared Section 2(1)(d) of the Army Act, which elaborates on persons subject to the Act, to be in violation of the Constitution and “of no legal effect”. The court also declared Section 59(4) (civil offences) of the Act to be unconstitutional. Justice Afridi disagreed with striking down the sections.
The order said the trials of 102 civilians and accused persons, identified by the government in a list provided to the SC, and all other persons who may be placed under trial in connection with the events of May 9 should be held in criminal courts.
