ISLAMABAD  -   The Senate on Monday passed a “controversial” resolution, with a majority of vote, rejecting the recent decision of the Supreme Court that had declared the trial of civilians in military courts unconstitutional.

The resolution demanded the SC to reconsider its decision, which is “legally flawed and should not be implemented unless” it is taken up by a larger bench. 

“The Senate of Pakistan calls upon the apex court to reconsider its decision, urging the alignment with the national security paradigm and sacrifices of the martyrs in order to address the concerns raised regarding the ramifications of the judgment on the security and stability of the nation,” reads the resolution jointly moved by Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) and some independent lawmakers belonging to Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP).

It says that apparently the apex court has made an attempt to rewrite the law by impinging upon the legislative authority of the Parliament. It further reads that the judgment annuls the sacrifices made by martyrs of the Armed Forces, civilians, and law enforcement agencies in combating terrorism.

On October 23, the SC through the 4-1 majority had declared certain clauses of the Army Act 1952 as ultra vires the Constitution saying that civilians including those involved in May 9 attacks on military installations should be tried by ordinary criminal courts.

Senator Dilawar Khan, an independent lawmaker from KP, introduced the resolution in the thinly-attended house instantly minutes before its adjournment. The other signatories of the  resolution are senators Kauda Babar, Naseebullah Bazai, Manzoor Ahmad Kakar, Ahmed Khan and Prince Ahmed Umer Ahmedzai. Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Senator Raza Rabbani and Jamaat- e-Islami Senator Mushtaq Ahmed opposed the resolution with the latter saying that rules have been violated while introducing the same. However, Chairman Muhammad Senate Sadiq Sanjrani rejected the assertion.

The resolution says that it resonates the concerns and sentiments expressed by various stakeholders in particular and the public in general regarding the verdict. It reiterated that the trial of those accused of violence against the Armed Forces under the Army Act was an appropriate and proportional response in line with Pakistan’s existing constitutional framework and statutory regime. “The trial of individuals accused of anti-state vandalism and violence under the Army Act serves as a deterrent against such acts.” 

The house firmly stands with the families of martyrs, who have expressed “feelings of insecurity and treachery due to this decision,” reads the resolution. It adds that their concern is that the absence of military court trials is likely to encourage or embolden those responsible for acts of terrorism due to lack of stringent justice in regular courts.

The house said that military courts had played a significant role in addressing terrorism, adding that such courts always followed due process and formalities. It further said the SC ruling granted “lenient options to terrorists, anti-state actors, foreign agents and spies to be tried in normal courts.”

 The resolution said that the judgment overlooked the existence of an appeal process, against military courts’ orders, which included appeal avenues with the Chief of Army Staff and the President, as well as the option to file writ petitions in high courts that might eventually reach the Supreme Court.

The resolution reaffirmed that May 9 would be remembered as a dark day in the history of the country and condemned the anti-state acts committed against the Armed Forces. It emphasized that the culprits of May 9 riots deserved no empathy or leniency rather they should be tried in military courts. 

The house through the resolution recalled that amendments, specifically addition of Sections 2 (1)(d), to Army Act that allowed for trial of those civilians, who commit offence like attacking the military installations, under military courts was added to the Army Act in 1967. It said that civilians had been tried in military courts in the past under this provision and previous decisions of the apex court upheld such trials.

It concluded that invalidation of the jurisdiction of army courts was likely to facilitate vandals and abettors of terrorism and anti-state activities.

Earlier, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) Senator Kamran Murtaza questioned powers of the caretaker government to give an extension to the term of incumbent head of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the country’s premier intelligence agency. The lawmaker requested the chair to seek an answer from the caretaker government over this decision. He further said that this should be seen whether the decision was covered by the Elections Act and the apex court’s decision in Khawaja Asif Case. Last week, Prime Minister Anwar-ul- Haq Kakar in an interview to a foreign media outlet had said that the term of the ISI Director General Lieutenant General Nadeem Anjum had been extended to preserve “continuity” of policy at a time when the country was faced with increasing militant attacks.