PESHAWAR – The Peshawar High Court (PHC) dismissed 29 petitions challenging military court sentences, concluding hearings on the matter. The court ruled that the sentences were imposed under special laws, and the petitioners were not entitled to any leniency.
The petitioners’ counsels, Additional Attorney General Sanaullah, and judicial assistant Shumail Ahmad Butt presented their arguments before the court. The petitioners’ lawyers contended that the convicted individuals had already served their sentences but were not being released. They argued that time spent in custody must be counted as part of the sentence under legal provisions.
Read More: Pakistan Post Recruitments: PHC Suspends Re-Examinations
The Additional Attorney General countered that military court sentences fall under special laws, which do not grant the benefit of Section 382-B to convicts. He maintained that the convicted individuals were terrorists and did not deserve any leniency. He further stated that existing court rulings confirm that sentences imposed under special laws exclude the application of Section 382-B.
According to the Additional Attorney General, the sentences only take effect from the date of official approval and not from the date of arrest. He clarified that convictions by the Field General Court Martial fall under special laws, and the high court’s role is limited to reviewing whether the sentences comply with the relevant legal provisions.
The court ruled that the sentences were imposed under the Army Act and would be counted from the date of official endorsement. The bench upheld the argument that convicts sentenced under special laws cannot claim the benefit of Section 382-B.
Read More: KP Govt Presses PHC for Judicial Commission on May 9 Incidents
Legal experts noted that this ruling aligns with previous court decisions affirming the supremacy of special laws in military court cases. They emphasized that the high court’s jurisdiction in such matters remains restricted to procedural oversight rather than a reassessment of evidence or sentencing decisions.
Families of the convicted individuals expressed disappointment over the verdict, stating that their loved ones had already endured prolonged detentions. They urged authorities to reconsider the application of special laws that deny prisoners the relief available under ordinary legal provisions.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court delivered a brief ruling, dismissing all 29 petitions. The verdict reinforces the government’s stance on counterterrorism measures and the military court judiciary’s authority in handling such cases.
