PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Monday dismissed 29 writ petitions contesting sentences awarded by military courts, ruling that these sentences are valid and enforceable only after confirmation by the Field General Court Martial (FGCM).
A division bench comprising Justice Naeem Anwar and Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal announced the decision after a series of hearings where the petitioners’ legal teams and the federal government presented their arguments.
During proceedings, lawyers representing the petitioners argued that many of those convicted had already completed significant portions of their sentences while in military custody. They contended that under existing legal provisions, including Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the period spent in detention should be counted towards sentence reduction, making them eligible for release.
However, Additional Attorney General Sanaullah countered the argument, clarifying that Section 382-B does not apply to convictions under the Pakistan Army Act or other special laws governing military courts. He stated that the individuals in question had been convicted of terrorism-related offenses, and the sentences were imposed under special jurisdiction, where standard criminal procedural relief is not applicable.
Sanaullah further emphasized that sentences awarded by military courts only take effect once they are formally signed and confirmed by the FGCM. “The military court process is distinct from the ordinary criminal justice system. Previous rulings by larger benches of the PHC have upheld that these sentences do not allow for any concessions under Section 382-B,” he explained.
Court Assistant Shamil Ahmad Butt also provided clarity on the legal framework, noting that the PHC’s role is limited to ensuring that the due process outlined in military laws has been followed. He stressed that the court cannot interfere with the substance of the sentences once procedural compliance has been established.
The judgment marks a significant legal development, reaffirming the jurisdiction and finality of military court rulings in cases pertaining to national security and terrorism. Legal observers note that the decision could set a precedent for future petitions challenging military court decisions.
