The Punjab government and the Defence Ministry have urged the Lahore High Court (LHC) to dismiss a petition filed by Hassaan Niazi, arguing that a civilian convicted of an offence against the state cannot challenge his military court proceedings through a separate constitutional petition while an appeal is pending.
In a report submitted after nearly a year on behalf of the provincial government through the home secretary and inspector general of police, the deputy inspector general of police (legal) maintained that loyalty to the state was every citizen’s primary duty, citing a 2005 Lahore High Court judgment (PLD 2005 Lahore 721).
The report described Niazi as a convicted prisoner and argued that his release could not be sought through a second round of litigation outside the prescribed appellate process.
It maintained that no judicial order was required for his transfer to military custody because he was neither in judicial custody nor on remand at the time.
The report also described Niazi as an absconder, distinguishing his case from that of 16 co-accused whose transfer had been sought from an anti-terrorism court while they were in jail.
According to the report, the station house officer of Sarwar Road police station neither handed over Niazi’s custody nor received a letter from the commanding officer. It alleged that the transfer had instead been carried out by the investigation in-charge of the police station, who was not a party to the petition.
The provincial government further cited the Supreme Court’s May 7, 2025, ruling on intra-court appeals, arguing that although the decision upheld military trials while allowing the accused a right of appeal, it did not grant them the right to initiate constitutional petitions.
The report said Niazi had already filed an appeal under Section 133-B of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and argued that the same legal question could not be pursued simultaneously before two different forums.
It also maintained that Niazi had misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s short order, which, according to the report, applied to petitions pending or filed against orders issued by anti-terrorism courts.
The government accused Niazi of concealing material information concerning his appeal, proceedings initiated earlier by his father, Hafeezullah Khan Niazi, including a petition before the Supreme Court and a contempt petition, as well as an anti-terrorism court order dated May 25, 2023.
The report further stated that Niazi had not attached the military court’s order to his petition, an objection that the high court had upheld in two other cases.
The provincial government asked the court to dismiss the petition, arguing that it was legally inadmissible and lacked merit.
According to the report, Niazi was declared a proclaimed offender in FIR No. 96/2023, registered on May 10, 2023, at Sarwar Road police station in Lahore Cantonment in connection with the attack on Jinnah House, the residence of the Lahore Corps commander.
Police arrested Niazi in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa on August 16, 2023. The following day, the commanding officer of the 54 Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Battalion in Lahore sought his custody, stating that the alleged offences fell under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and were triable by a court-martial.
Police transferred him under Section 76 of the Army Act, read with Section 549(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was subsequently sentenced to 10 years in prison in December 2024.
In a separate response, the Defence Ministry told the LHC that Niazi had visited Jinnah House on May 9, 2023, where he allegedly recorded videos and made sarcastic remarks about the corps commander’s uniform.
The ministry argued that the incident damaged Pakistan’s image and was prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state.
In its reply, signed by an assistant judge advocate general from the Army’s legal branch at Headquarters 4 Corps and submitted through an additional attorney general, the ministry said Niazi was being held at Kot Lakhpat Jail after being convicted by a Field General Court Martial (FGCM).
It said he had been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, read with Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act.
The ministry argued that Articles 199(3) and 8(3) of the Constitution barred the high court from hearing the petition, citing constitutional restrictions concerning matters involving personnel subject to the armed forces’ legal framework. It also pointed out that Niazi’s appeal under Section 133-B of the Army Act was pending before the military appellate forum.
The response stated that the Supreme Court’s May 7, 2025, short order restored Sections 2(1)(d) and 59(4) of the Army Act without striking down Section 133-B.
It further argued that the Supreme Court’s direction for high courts to decide petitions on their own merits did not override constitutional restrictions on their jurisdiction.
According to the ministry, Niazi had been tried with a lawyer of his choice and made a judicial confession before a magistrate, which he did not retract during the trial.
The reply stated that the trial concluded on January 5, 2024, while Niazi was admitted to Lahore’s Central Jail on December 26, 2024. It also questioned the delay in approaching the court, saying he had waited nearly two years to file the petition.
The ministry confirmed that Niazi had been transferred to military custody under Section 549(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Rejecting allegations of discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution, the ministry argued that protesters involved in ordinary acts of disruption were tried by anti-terrorism courts, whereas Niazi’s alleged offence concerned a prohibited military installation.
It maintained that a joint trial with the other accused was legally impermissible and said no case under the Official Secrets Act had been tried in an ordinary court so far.
The response also stated that arrangements had been made for Niazi to speak to and meet his family weekly following his transfer to military custody.
The Defence Ministry requested that the court dismiss the petition as premature, legally inadmissible and without merit, maintaining that constitutional provisions restricted the high court’s jurisdiction over cases involving individuals subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.
