SC Orders Defence Ministry to Submit Details on Military Trials of Civilians
7-member constitutional bench stresses no one should be punished without fair hearing
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has directed the Ministry of Defence to provide detailed information regarding the military trials of civilians conducted to date. The ruling comes as part of ongoing proceedings concerning the jurisdiction of military courts over civilian trials.
The 7-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin, convened to address the legal battle surrounding military courts’ involvement in civilian cases. Other members of the bench included Justices Jamal Mandokhel, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Masrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan.
Military Trials Under Scrutiny
The proceedings began with Khawaja Haris, representing the Ministry of Defence, defending the practice of military trials for civilians. He argued that if the relevant sections of the law were found valid, petitions against such trials would be inadmissible. Haris further maintained that the military trials followed the established legal procedures.
However, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi raised concerns over the transparency of these trials. He questioned whether the accused were given the opportunity to present witnesses and if the standard of evidence met legal requirements. Despite previous requests, the court had been denied access to the records of military trials. Justice Rizvi clarified that the court was not seeking to review the trial’s merits, but instead wished to ensure that due process and fair trial rights were respected.
Court’s Request for Records
In response, Khawaja Haris agreed to submit the record of one military trial case for review. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar emphasized the need for fairness, stressing that while the court could not review the merits of the trials, it was necessary to verify whether the procedures followed were in compliance with constitutional standards for fair trials.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi reiterated that the court’s focus was solely on the process—specifically whether the accused had a fair opportunity to present a defense and whether the presentation of evidence adhered to the principles of natural justice.
Concerns Over Army Act and Civilian Trials
A major point of contention in the proceedings was the application of the Army Act to civilians. Justice Jamal Mandokhel questioned whether the Army Act, originally designed for regulating military personnel, was being misapplied to civilians. He suggested that if there had been a separate law for criminal offenses, the issue of military trials for civilians might not have arisen.
Read More: Supreme Court judge questions why APS attackers were not tried in military courts
Khawaja Haris defended the use of the Army Act, arguing that it was designed to ensure that military operations were not hindered and that its application to civilians was part of an ongoing legal reform process. However, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan expressed concerns about the 1967 amendment to the Army Act, which expanded its scope to include civilians, including retired officers. He suggested that this inclusion could potentially require a constitutional amendment.
Need for Legal Clarity
The bench acknowledged that the introduction of Article 10A, guaranteeing the right to a fair trial, had fueled ongoing debate regarding the scope of military trials. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan noted that the inclusion of civilians in military courts might have been an oversight in the law’s drafting, potentially requiring a constitutional amendment for clarity.
The Supreme Court ultimately directed the Ministry of Defence to provide comprehensive records of all civilian trials under military courts, excluding cases such as Kulbhushan Jadhav’s. The court emphasized that while it was not reviewing the trials’ merits, it was crucial to ensure transparency and compliance with constitutional guarantees.
Future Deliberations
As the hearing concluded, the court adjourned the case for further deliberations, focusing on examining the records of military trials and evaluating the adequacy of legal safeguards. The bench underscored its commitment to ensuring that the rights of the accused are upheld and that the legal process remains fair and just.
