ISLAMABAD
\nThe caretaker federal, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan governments have joined a growing list of challenges landing in the Supreme Court of Pakistan against its verdict about military trials of civilians.
\nThe federal, KP and Balochistan governments filed intra-court appeals in the apex court on Friday through the Attorney General for Pakistan, that decision of the Supreme Court against the trials of civilians in the military courts should be annulled, praying the court \u201cThe order of the division bench should be stayed pending the decision on the appeals.\u201d
\nThe governments argued that the five-judge apex court bench constituted in the military courts case was not governed by Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act, adding the judgment is also ineffective as the Constitution of the five-member bench is not in accordance with law.
\nEarlier, the Ministries of Defence and Interior have also filed intra-court appeals in the Supreme Court against the judgement in military trials of civilians case. Through its appeal filed on Friday, the Ministry has prayed the apex court to overturn its October 23 verdict.
\nIn the petition, the defence ministry has appealed to the apex court to revoke the October 23 decision and restore the sections of the Official Secrets Act which were declared illegal. It also urges the Supreme Court to restore Section 59(4) of the Army Act.
\nThe petition also warned that declaring some sections of the Army Act and Official Secrets Act illegal would harm the country. The defence ministry\u2019s plea comes a day after the caretaker Sindh government and Shuhada Forum, Balochistan, separately requested the Supreme Court to set aside its judgment declaring unconstitutional the trials of civilians in military courts.
\nAdditionally, the petition has argued that the petitions heard by the five-member bench were not admissible in the first place. The Ministry of Interior also filed an appeal against the apex court\u2019s verdict against the military courts.
\nOn Thursday, the Sindh government had also lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Supreme Court\u2019s decision. The Sindh chief secretary had filed the appeal, questioning the maintainability of petitions filed against Army Act provisions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
\nThe appeal had also mentioned that the decision of a five-member bench which had declared \u2018unconstitutional\u2019 the trials of civilians under the Pakistan Army Act 1952, to strike down certain sections of the law was in contradiction to the earlier precedents set by the apex court.
\nAccording to the appeal, the petitions had been filed in response to actions taken against those who attacked military installations on May 9, following the arrest of PTI Chairman Imran Khan.
\nSeparately, Nawabzada Jamal Raisani, Shuhada Forum, Balochsitan, patron-in-chief, and legal heirs of Shuhada filed an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) under Section 5 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 against the judgment delivered on October 23. They had prayed the apex court to set aside and reverse the judgment and order of the court passed by the five-member larger bench.
\nOn October 23, a five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsen and comprising Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha A Malik had declared trials of civilians in the military courts as unconstitutional and held that 103 persons and others who may be placed in relation to the events arising from May 9 and 10 could be tried by criminal courts established under the ordinary or special law of the land.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
ISLAMABAD The caretaker federal, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan governments have joined a growing list of challenges landing in the Supreme Court of Pakistan against its verdict about military trials of civilians. The federal, KP and Balochistan governments filed intra-court appeals in the apex court on Friday through the Attorney General for Pakistan, that decision of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-368587","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-top-news"},"yoast_head":"\n