Military court convicts entitled to 'file petitions'
A two-member bench comprising Justice Waqar Ahmad and Justice Sadiq Ali Memon issued the detailed verdict while hearing a petition filed by Adnan and others from Mardan, who had been convicted by military courts in connection with the May 9 incidents following the arrest of Imran Khan. The petitioners have contended that they had not been involved in the unrest that had taken place at the Mardan City police station and had been wrongfully implicated. They have pointed out that while their co-accused had been tried in anti-terrorism courts, they had been handed over to military courts without being provided an explanation or legal documentation.
During the hearing, the Deputy Attorney General objected to the admissibility of the petition, arguing that the petitioners had an alternative appellate forum which they had failed to approach within the prescribed timeframe. Therefore, he claimed, the petition was time-barred and not maintainable.
In response, the petitioners' counsel, Barrister Amirullah Chamkani, maintained that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had in a recent short order suggested that the federal government amend the Pakistan Army Act to formally recognize High Courts as appellate forums for military court convictions. However, the counsel pointed out, the government had failed to implement these amendments, thereby depriving the petitioners of an appellate remedy.
Chamkani further argued that his clients were unaware of the charges against them, had not been provided any trial documents, and had only been informed after the lapse of the appeal period. He, therefore, contended that it was unjust to declare their petition inadmissible.
The PHC, in its written order, observed that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 could not be denied, especially in situations where no effective remedy was available to the aggrieved parties. The court ruled that the absence of any appellate forum and the lack of transparency in the trial process justified the maintainability of the writ petition.
Referring to the precedent set in the Brigadier Ali case, the court noted that even the Supreme Court, while upholding military trials under the Army Act, had accepted that High Courts could exercise jurisdiction in such matters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
15 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Military court convicts entitled to 'file petitions'
In a landmark judgment, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) has ruled that individuals convicted by military courts had the constitutional right to file writ petitions before the High Court. The decision came as a significant blow to the federal government's stance, which had argued that such petitions were inadmissible due to the availability of alternative forums for appeal. A two-member bench comprising Justice Waqar Ahmad and Justice Sadiq Ali Memon issued the detailed verdict while hearing a petition filed by Adnan and others from Mardan, who had been convicted by military courts in connection with the May 9 incidents following the arrest of Imran Khan. The petitioners have contended that they had not been involved in the unrest that had taken place at the Mardan City police station and had been wrongfully implicated. They have pointed out that while their co-accused had been tried in anti-terrorism courts, they had been handed over to military courts without being provided an explanation or legal documentation. During the hearing, the Deputy Attorney General objected to the admissibility of the petition, arguing that the petitioners had an alternative appellate forum which they had failed to approach within the prescribed timeframe. Therefore, he claimed, the petition was time-barred and not maintainable. In response, the petitioners' counsel, Barrister Amirullah Chamkani, maintained that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had in a recent short order suggested that the federal government amend the Pakistan Army Act to formally recognize High Courts as appellate forums for military court convictions. However, the counsel pointed out, the government had failed to implement these amendments, thereby depriving the petitioners of an appellate remedy. Chamkani further argued that his clients were unaware of the charges against them, had not been provided any trial documents, and had only been informed after the lapse of the appeal period. He, therefore, contended that it was unjust to declare their petition inadmissible. The PHC, in its written order, observed that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 could not be denied, especially in situations where no effective remedy was available to the aggrieved parties. The court ruled that the absence of any appellate forum and the lack of transparency in the trial process justified the maintainability of the writ petition. Referring to the precedent set in the Brigadier Ali case, the court noted that even the Supreme Court, while upholding military trials under the Army Act, had accepted that High Courts could exercise jurisdiction in such matters.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
Notices in military courts convictions issued
Fateh Khan, Fazal Ghaffar and Tajir Gul had been convicted of carrying our terror attacks in the country by military courts. CREATIVE: AAMIR KHAN A two-member bench of the Peshawar High Court (PHC), comprising Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Khurshid Iqbal, has issued notices to the relevant authorities in response to appeals filed by individuals convicted by military courts in connection with the May 9 riots. The appellants hail from Bannu, Chakdara, and Balambat in Lower Dir, and their legal counsel has challenged the legality and transparency of their convictions. The appeals, filed against the sentences handed down by military courts under the Field General Court Martial (FGCM), argue that the convicts were denied a fair trial and not provided with verdict copies or related legal documents. During the hearing, the appellants were represented by Barrister Amirullah Chamkani, who told the court that the convictions and subsequent prison terms – ranging from two to 10 years – were based on allegedly unlawful trials. According to Chamkani, his clients include Rahimullah, Izzat Gul, Naik Muhammad, Khalid Nawaz, Ikramullah, Ameenullah, Saqlain Haider, Khizar Hayat, and Afaq from Bannu, who were sentenced to 10 years each. Sohrab Khan and Asadullah Durrani from Balambat received two-year terms, while Rais Ahmad and another individual named Ikramullah from Chakdara were sentenced to four years. All were charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for allegedly protesting against the arrest of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and damaging state properties, including security installations and police stations. The lawyer noted that although similar charges were faced by other protestors, many of them were tried in anti-terrorism courts and were acquitted due to lack of evidence. In contrast, the current appellants were handed over to military courts without any explanation, raising serious concerns about selective prosecution and lack of due process. He emphasized that under Pakistan's Constitution, specifically Article 10-A, every citizen is entitled to a fair trial and access to necessary legal documentation, including a written copy of the verdict. However, the appellants were neither given formal charges nor informed of the exact nature of their alleged offenses. Chamkani argued that the appellants only became aware of their sentences after the statutory period for appeal had lapsed, effectively denying them their legal right to challenge the convictions in a timely manner. Moreover, he pointed out that none of the appellants were directly named in the original FIRs; their names were added at a later stage without any disclosed basis. Despite several efforts to obtain clarity from authorities and request documentation, their concerns have been met with silence, further undermining the legitimacy of the process. Citing a recent Supreme Court observation, the counsel stressed that while military trials of civilians were upheld, the apex court maintained that such convicts must have the right to appeal. Since no appeal forum currently exists for military court convictions, he asserted that the high court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Concluding his argument, Chamkani requested the court to declare the military court convictions null and void and to direct that the cases be tried afresh in accordance with civil laws and constitutional guarantees. After hearing the preliminary arguments, the PHC issued notices to the Secretary of Defence, the Field General Court Martial, the federal government.
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Business Recorder
Employees transferred from T&T to PTC, and subsequently to PTCL: SC judgement
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court by majority of 2 to 1 held that the employees transferred from T&T to PTC, and subsequently to PTCL, retained not only their right to pensionary benefits but also the character of those benefits as dynamic and evolving rights. A three-judge, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Ayesha A Malik, on Thursday, announced the judgment regarding of pension of PTCL ex-employees. Multiple judgments of various High Courts were impugned before the Court, essentially on the same subject matter being the entitlement of the employees of the erstwhile Telegraph and Telephone (T&T) Department to receive the same pension and pensionary benefits accorded to civil servants, as notified by the federal government from time to time. Justice Yahya and Justice Amin disagreed with the judgment of Justice Ayesha. Justice Yahya judgment said while employees transferred from T&T to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), and subsequently to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) ceased to be civil servants, the statutory framework governing their transfer safeguarded their pensionary entitlements in full: not just as frozen benefits fixed at the time of transfer, but as living rights that were to progress in accordance with prevailing standards applicable to similarly situated public servants. The scheme under Section 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991, and Section 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorga-nization) Act, 1996 guarantees the continuation of these entitlements, and the administrative mechanism created under the PTCL Act, including the establishment of Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) was intended to facilitate, not frustrate, this guarantee. PTCL and PTET are duty-bound to ensure that the full measure of these entitlements is met, and any interpretation that reduces these rights to static or discretionary payments is contrary to the legislative mandate. The majority judgment clarified that this conclusion and these dispositions, have not been reached in ignorance of the financial concerns raised by PTCL and PTET. The submissions regarding the financial burden and claims of fiscal unsustainability have been duly considered. However, financial difficulty does not absolve a statutory entity of its legal obligations. If the existing pension model is incapable of sustaining the financial burden, it is the model that must be recalibrated, not the statutory entitlements curtailed. That said, the practical challenges identified by PTCL and PTET are real, and it is recognised a rigid timeline for disbursement may not be financially viable. Accordingly, PTCL must acknowledge its continuing financial liability towards former civil servants and reflect this as a declared liability on its financial records in accordance with applicable accounting and corporate law principles. Thereafter, PTCL, through PTET, may determine a feasible disbursement schedule for revised pensionary payments, the needful be done within 90 days, and that the payment process remains transparent and equitable in addressing the rightful claims of the affected pensioners. The chief justice held; CPLA Nos. 412, 420–424, 461–463, and 506 of 2019; CPLA Nos. 424-K, 357-K, and 365-K of 2019; CPLA Nos. 6005, 6006, 6023–6030, 6087–6096, 6101–6106, 6268–6273, and 6364 of 2021, 6453-6456 of 2021; and CPLA Nos. 134–135 of 2022 are dismissed. The impugned judgments of the High Courts are upheld to the extent that they grant pensionary revisions to those transferred employees who were civil servants at the time of their transfer. Such employees are entitled to the continuation of pensionary benefits, including revisions notified by the federal government. The CPLA Nos 2107, 2140, 2141, 2143, 2144, 2145, 2146, and 2147 of 2022 are allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside. The petitioners, being civil servants at the time of transfer, are entitled to continued pensionary revisions as per federal government notifications. The CPLA Nos 2138, 2139, and 2142 of 2022 are allowed, subject to classification confirmation. The matters are remanded to the relevant High Court for factual determination of the service status of the petitioners at the time of transfer. If the petitioners are found to have been civil servants, they shall be entitled to the continuation of pensionary benefits, including revisions notified by the federal government. The CPLA Nos 6205, 6222-6225, 6332, 6333, 6358-6363, 6379, 6437, 6485, 6545-6550, 6553-6556 of 2021, and CPLA Nos 30, 112-114, 118, 139-145, 329, 330, 368-371, 465-471, 645 of 2022 are remanded for determination whether each petitioner held civil-servant status at transfer end, and if so, for corresponding pension revisions. The CPLA No 426-K of 2019; CPLA Nos 1919 and 2066 of 2019; and CPLA Nos 369, 373, and 603 of 2018 are dismissed, as the petitioners either availed VSS, were not civil servants at the time of transfer, or did not establish a statutory entitlement to pensionary revisions under the applicable legal framework. The CPLA Nos 2197, 2199, and 2200–2205 of 2022; CPLA Nos. 2563 and 2564 of 2022; and CPLA Nos 495-K and 496-K of 2023 are remanded to the relevant High Court for determination of the petitioners' employment classification and entitlement to relief in light of the legal principles laid down in this judgment. The CA No 1509 of 2021 is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Crl.O.P. No 28/2018 in Crl.O.P. No 54/2015; Crl.O.P. Nos 56/2018 and 84/2018 in C.P.L.A. No 1643/2014; Crl.O.P. No 144/2022 and Crl.O.P. No 29/2023 in C.P.L.A. No 568/2014 are dismissed as infructuous. Crl.M.A. No 139/2025 in Crl.O.P. No 56/2018 is also dismissed. CMA Nos. 5783/2022, 5641/2022, 5784/2022, 5785/2022, 5786/2022, 5624/2022, 5787/2022, 5788/2022, 5638/2022, 5789/2022, 5883/2022, 5862/2022, 6066/2022, 6075/2022, 6076/2022, 6079/2022, 6074/2022, 6601/2022, 6602/2022 (interim applications for injunctive relief in various CPLAs) are disposed of as infructuous, the main matters having been decided. CMA Nos. 1470/2020 and 7698/2022 in CPLA No. 463/2019; CMA Nos. 1636 and 1637/2022 in CPLA No. 6005/2021; CMA Nos. 1633 and 810/2022 in CPLA No. 6358/2021; and CMA No. 11521/2023 in CPLA No. 6379/2021, and CMA No. 7515/2024 in CPLA No. 6104 of 2021 all seeking impleadment, are dismissed. CMA No. 8153 of 2023 in CPLA No. 424-K of 2019, seeking de-clubbing of the petition, is dismissed. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
