•Justice Aminuddin Khan made detailed reasoning, and the order of the five judges said it was similar to the order of “legislation rather than interpretation”
•Judge Magyar said
Islamabad: Judge Aminuddin Khan said that although the 1952 procedural framework of the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) includes appropriate procedural protection, there is no independent right to appeal to the civil court. Incomplete.
He made these remarks with a 68-page verdict to justify the short-term order of 38 internal apartments on May 7, which challenged October 23, 2023 Order Military trial of civilians. Judge Khan explained that this flaw requires legislative intervention and urged the parliament to do so within 45 days.
According to Judge Khan, the Constitutional Judge has brought the matter to Parliament to promulgate the appropriate amendment and expects the respect of such a system to be respected as it deserves. However, he again seeks within 45 days the necessary amendments or appropriate legislation to grant the right of appeal under section (4) of Article 59 or (ii) under section (i) of Article 59 or (ii) under section (i) of Article 59 or (ii).
Judge Khan pointed out that a fair trial requires that the forum should be fair, just and government in accordance with transparent rules. Judge Khan said that the PAA, which is currently constructed and applied in the current situation, meets this constitutional requirement, adding that the hero is the hero believes that the conduct of the trial under the PAA was exercised within the statutory scope and supported under procedural safeguards, but did not violate the fair trial standards.
May 7, restored by 5-2 key majority constitutional judges Pakistan Army Act According to the civilian convicted of participating in arson on May 9, 2023 attack On military devices. Short-term orders also put aside the October 23 judgment, restoring Sections 2 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) and (ii) and (ii) and 59 (4) of the PAA. The rules were beaten by five judges in October 2023.
“Reading” method
Justice Khan said that the interpretive technique used in the October 23 judgment was inapplicable, adding that the doctrine of reading is a tool of judicial statics, aiming to preserve the disputes of regulations by interpreting them in a narrow sense in the case of ambiguity. He observed that it cannot be deployed to insert qualifications or restrictions into clear constitutional provisions.
Judge Khan stressed that the October 23 order could allegedly be able to cover the explicit text of Article 8(3)(a), effectively replacing the judicial preferences of the constitutional order, adding that this approach crossed the legal threshold and entered the field of constitutional amendments. He stressed that the judicial function is interpretation rather than legislation.
Article 8(3)(a) is an independent constitutional provision. Judge Khan said it explicitly exempted the laws made for the armed forces, with the aim of disciplinary and performance of duties, and violated the law from the operation of fundamental rights, calling it a intentional legislative choice by the makers.
In this case, it is unreasonable to introduce Article 8, paragraph 5 as a qualified clause. He added that Article 8, paragraph 5 involves the suspension of rights under emergency powers and cannot, nor can it cover the permanent structural exclusion of Article 8 (3) (a).
Article 8 (3) (a) exempts laws related to the armed forces from the authority of basic rights and explicitly recognizes the parallel system of military discipline.
Article 245 further authorizes the armed forces to defend Pakistan and act for the civil authorities, indicating that the Constitution is considering areas of action and discipline managed by military command and unique legal procedures.
Judge Khan said the military court’s ruling bodies exercising against civilians do not infringe on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Article 175(3) is not offended by the existence or action of the military court in its legal functions.
Additional instructions
Meanwhile, while Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar agreed, he said in his additional note that the trial of a particular offence provided for in Articles 2 (d) (i) and (ii) is not a new phenomenon.
The reason is that the PAA extends jurisdiction to some civilians that have been established for decades, with tacit approval from the continuous legislature and silent approval from the Supreme Court.
Judge Magyar explained that the fact that these provisions remained unchallenged or not declared as super articles at an earlier stage shows that they have long been understood as effective and operational in the constitutional plan.
It was not until the May 9, 2023 incident that civilian prosecutions under the PAA gained public and political prosecutions, which caused the focus of this issue. In this context, he believes it is necessary to ask whether the law itself is weak or whether the sudden urgency of the moment has led to the judicial core, which is struggling with decades of resolution.
Posted in Dawn on September 23, 2025
