SC says fair trial is a fundamental right

Ruling says right of a person should not be taken away without hearing

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has ruled that any decision that affected the right of a person should not be taken without providing an opportunity of being heard, saying that the court is bound to analyse the facts and circumstances of case.

While hearing an appeal of a Frontier Constabulary (FC) official against his transfer and demotion without following due process, the court said that under the Article 10A of the Constitution, the right to a fair trial was a fundamental right.

A division bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and including Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar heard the case, while Justice Mazhar authored a seven-page judgment.

The court noted that the principles of natural justice required that a delinquent should be afforded a fair-minded opportunity to converge, give explanation and contest it before being found guilty and condemned.

“Where any authority regulates and performs its affairs under a statute, which provides the compliance of the principles of natural justice in a straightforward modus then application of natural justice should have been adhered to stringently,” said the judgement.

The appeal had stated that on August 16, 2017, the Frontier Constabulary transferred the appellant from one platoon to another, as punishment. Through another office order on November 28, 2017, the appellant was made the junior-most in the new platoon.

The appellant preferred a departmental appeal on January 3, 2018 which was followed by a department representation on August 16, 2018 but there was no response. He then filed an appeal in the service tribunal, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

Read Supreme Court questions ECL tweaks

The apex court ruling noted that under Article 13 of the Constitution, no person should be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once or when the accused of an offence would be compelled to be a witness against himself.

“In the case in hand, it is apparent that the appellant was vexed twice for the same alleged offence of making false complaint against his colleagues, who were found innocent after inquiry,” the judgment said.

“The punishment of transfer as well as declaring him junior while upsetting the seniority through another office order issued in continuation are for the one and the same cause is also hit by the doctrine of double jeopardy which provides a legal defence to shield a person from being tried again for the same indictments after an acquittal or conviction,” it added.

“The catchphrase ‘complete justice’ is actually a wide-ranging and all-inclusive expression articulating to do justice by all means so that the dominant interest of justice is not altered or distorted on mere technicalities.”

The court set aside the transfer and demotion orders of the FC official. It clarified that in case of allegations of misconduct against the appellant, the department might issue a show-cause notice to him and if the reply was found unsatisfactory, a regular inquiry might be conducted in accordance with the law for further action.