SC Questions Absence of Independent Forum in Military Trials of Civilians

SC Questions Absence of Independent Forum in Military Trials of Civilians

April 13, 2025

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench noted that although the Army Act is indeed a legitimate statute, significant doubts persist regarding the lack of an autonomous body for prosecuting civilians in military tribunals.

The observations were made at a hearing examining the legitimacy of military tribunals for civilian cases, conducted by a seven-judge larger panel headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan.

In the course of the hearing, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar pointed out the difference between 'Defence of Pakistan' and 'Defence Services of Pakistan,' emphasizing the importance of interpreting the Army Act with greater accuracy.

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan expressed reservations regarding the extensive reach of the legislation, querying if ordinary citizens accessing cantonments—which frequently include commercial zones and communal spots—could find themselves under military judicial proceedings. He posed this question: "Should I face trial before a military tribunal for trespassing without authorization?"

Judge Afghan highlighted that this was the initial case since the 1967 amendments to be reviewed, and warned about the susceptibility of non-combatants in urban areas containing military bases, like Lahore, Quetta, and Gujranwala.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail recounted his own experience of being barred from entering a cantonment area due to the lack of a permit and raised concerns about the widening definition of 'Defence of Pakistan.' He cautioned that this expansive interpretation might lead to entities such as the Supreme Court and Parliament also falling into this classification.

He additionally stressed the importance of reviewing the protocols of military courts after the inclusion of Article 10-A in the Constitution, which guarantees a just trial. He questioned why there isn’t an autonomous tribunal for these military proceedings.

The bench also raised doubts about the preference for military courts due to their stricter penalties, questioning why these cases could not be managed within the conventional legal framework.

The proceedings have been postponed till April 15th, while the court further examines the constitutional validity and consequences of conducting military tribunals for civilian populations.

Provided by Syndigate Media Inc. ( Syndigate.info ).
Thanks for your comment
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Loading...