The legal saga surrounding the trial of civilians in military courts unveils a complex interplay between national security imperatives and constitutional principles. The unfolding case promises to shape legal precedents, influencing not only the jurisdiction of military courts but also broader constitutional interpretations related to the armed forces. The ultimate judicial decision will undoubtedly have profound

implications for the rule of law and constitutional checks and balances. Contrary to the Federal Defense Ministry’s stance, the caretaker government of Balochistan has filed an appeal against the cessation of civilian trials in military courts. The caretaker government in Sindh is expected to follow suit, advocating for the continuation of trials in military courts until their petition is resolved. Engaging the legal prowess of senior lawyer Khawaja Haris, the Federal Defense Ministry, and Jahanzaib Awan representing Sindh, underscores the gravity of this legal

clash. Despite the challenge to the constitutional validity of the PPA 2023, an interim order was issued on April 13. The majority judgment in October dismissed petitions challenging the constitutionality of the PPA 2023, upholding its alignment with the Constitution. The petition contends that, given this timeline, the challenge to the trial of civilians in military courts was not maintainable. The petition argued that the legislative intent behind the Army Act is to ensure that civilians committing offenses affecting armed forces’ duties are tried under this Act. It emphasized the creation of judicial forums, akin to the Army Act, to handle matters independent of ordinary district courts. Highlighting the urgency of the cases, the government outlined incidents of attacks on military installations, including Corps Commander House and PAF Base Mianwali. The petition underscored the severity of the situation in Punjab, detailing 62 reported violent incidents causing injuries to 250 people, including 184 law enforcement personnel. Damages, both to vehicles and property, were estimated at Rs2.54 billion.

The ministry urged the court to reinstate Section 59(4) of the Army Act, struck down in the previous order, and called for an injunction against trials in special courts pending the final decision on the appeals. The federal government raised objections to the composition of the bench that heard the case, citing non-compliance with Sections 2 and 3 of the Practice and Procedure Act (PPA) 2023. The petition argued that the mandated Committee, comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and two senior-most judges, was not properly constituted under Section 2. Section 3 stipulates a procedural hierarchy that, according to the petition, was not followed. In a formal petition presented to the apex court, the ministry asserted that the petitions upon which the Supreme Court based its decision in October were deemed inadmissible. The ministry further emphasized that the resultant order, effectively overturning key provisions of the Army Act and the Official Secrets Act, would inflict irreparable damage. The Ministry of Defense’s petition not only sought to annul the decision against trying the accused in special courts but also aimed to reinstate invalidated provisions of the Official Secrets Act. Critically, it contended that the Supreme Court’s evaluation of both the law and the facts was insufficient and urged the restoration of repealed sections of the Army Act and the Official Secrets Act. On a recent Friday, the Federal Defense Ministry and the Balochistan provincial ministry collectively contested a pivotal decision by a five member bench of the Supreme Court, declaring the trial of civilians in military courts as ultra vires the Constitution. This move has set the stage for a complex legal battle, delving into constitutional interpretations and jurisdictional matters.