Following a Supreme Court observation that some clauses of the Army Act 1952 could be cancelled because they are in contravention of the Constitution, army authorities on Tuesday sought time from the apex court to amend the law.
The Army Act came under scrutiny on Monday during the hearing of a petition against one of its provisions that says no reason needs to be cited for a court martial once it has been issued. The petition was filed by Advocate Muhammad Akram, who is also a retired Pakistan Army officer, in 1999.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, heading a three-judge bench, granted three weeks to the army authorities to amend the law.
The counsel for military authorities, Mujeebur Rehman, told the bench that he has suggested relevant authorities to make the Army Act compatible with Pakistan Navy and Air Force Act. He added that the army authorities have agreed to amend certain (discriminatory) clauses of the act.
At Monday’s hearing, the apex court had observed a controversial clause of the Army Act – known as “non-speaking order” — is in contravention of Article 10-A of the Constitution and can be cancelled on the basis of Article 25.
Petition against Army chief’s extension
Meanwhile, a division bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) admitted an application for early hearing against the service extension given to the chief of army staff in 2010. The court will take up the case in the third week of November.
The two-judge bench – comprising Justice Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi and Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui – accepted the civil miscellaneous (CM) application filed by Colonel (retd) Inamur Rahim challenging the legality of the extension of Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s tenure.
In September, IHC Chief Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman had dismissed the petition terming it “not maintainable”. The petition was rejected under Article 199 (3) of the Constitution, which bars the high court from hearing military-related matters. Later, the petitioner filed an intra-court appeal (ICA) challenging the single-bench order.
The petitioner maintained that there was no provision in the Army Act 1956 and in the rules under which extension of a complete tenure could be granted to any person subject to the Army Act.
On Monday, the petitioner filed a fresh application seeking an early hearing of his appeal, especially after the recent statements given by Gen Kayani which, according to the petitioner, sparked ire at the national level — rendering it an urgent matter which should be heard on priority.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 14th, 2012.
COMMENTS (11)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Muqeet Khan: agree brother.. plz clc 2009 1283, cp 3617/2010 at SHC web, PLD 2009 FST 36,PLD 1989 QUETTA 6, U.S appellate jurisdiction over all military cases
nice to learn it.. as some dracolian laws have been ammended in recent parliament, similar these law of our Armed forces were very need to be ammend ,, there is hurdle in consitution under article 199/3 (An order shall not be made under clause (1) on application made by or in relation to a person who is a member of the Armed Forces of Pakistan, or who is for the time being subject to any law relating to any of those Forces, in respect of his terms and conditions of service, in respect of any matter arising out of his service, or in respect of any action taken in relation to him as a member of the Armed Forces of Pakistan or as a person subject to such law) ...... DUE TO THIS BAR MANY ARMED FORCES DISMISSED.COURT MARTIAL PERSONS WITH OUT LEGAL REMEDY IN SUPERIOUR COURTS/CONSITUTIONAL COURTS. its emazing a person Oath to Uphold the consitution ,,, but when he goes for remedy to consitutional court ,, The court replies ,,, I have not Jurisdiction,,, !!! LET IT BE NECESSARY TO CLEAR THERE. IN 2009 LHC in (clc 2009 page 1283) sitting Molive (R) Anwar Ul Haq declared it against the INJUCTION OF ISLAM. as law maker knows ,,Fedral sheriat court has power to test any vire of consitution where it is according to islam.. same happend in PLD 1994 SC 72. these two above preceedings were admitted by SHC in a C.P 3617/10 justice Mr. Justice Mushir Alam & Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan.. some other case law. PLD 2009 FST 36 , PLD 1989 QUETTA 6. army act naval ordianance airforce law were needed to be ammend in above dicussion, because these were in contra to consitution islam against Art.2-A 10-A ,25, the Consitution of Islamia Jamhoria Pakistan, U.S. Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over all military cases (United State Vs Stevenson) 2008
Inidian armed forces have joint Appellate Tribunals comprising a judge and a retired Lt Gen in all major cities who review court martial cases and hear appeals..Many a times the court martial proceedings are nullified by the Tribunals due to various irregularities.
In Pakistan,army men think they are above law and what they think or do is the right thing and civiians are lesser of the human beings. Therefore,the accused are denied all rights.According to these peopple a peson has rights only if he is in uniform. Just in case he violates law,then he is just like others without uniform.
In majority of the cases,personal whims and vendetta determine the course of justice. They would not try a murderer in many cases and in others you get screwed for abiding the law and refusing the unlawful command.
There is a need for these people to respect human rights at least!
There are people on the bench who are supporters of Banned outfits and had been contesting election on the ticket of a religious party. So what would you expect from them.
Army has once again shown its respect for the law by agreeing with the observations of apex courts. The army thrives its system and by agreeing to change the law they have also shown flexibility and patience. Army should be commended for standing tall and strong behind the shaky democracy. Free media and long tenures democracy were its previous gifts to the nation, now rule of law is another one in the list. One should also never forget the ultimate sacrifices life which many soldiers already have gifted and many will infuture.
Some I'll ignorant people simply want to depict this a an institutional tug of war. Well it mat seem so but it isn't. It's high time we as people start living by the law or the consequnces qould ve catastrophic. It's time when the rulers and the ruled, the powerful and the weak, the 'mahmud' and the 'ayaz' stand in one line before the law and submit to it. By his demeaned the gen seems to be a conciliatory guy and by his intention the cj seems to be a reasonable man. So if all institutions obey the law and their mandate and accept that of judicial branch to adjudicate, Pakistan would grow stronger and not weaker. The ultimate strength of a nation is in unity of it's people and not in force of armies.
I think there should be an appeal procedure for any verdict. That said, Army's internal policies or controls should be best left with the Armed Forces because they are appropriately trained to tackle those issues.
The majority of humanity errs in life. It is better to respect the law than to consider oneself above it and holdout to accountability. Giving associates and employees a fair deal is just being human because this is where equity and justice prevail. Salams
Round one has been conclusively won by the judiciary against the army. Round two is in progress and judiciary would most likely win this one also.
Soon Pakistan Army will be converted into levies and Khasadar Force with such forced amendments in the Pakistan Army Act. These enemies within are more dangerious than the whole world together.
why will army amend the act? isnt it president's job to do that?? :S