Army trial procedure in focus of CB

Bench seeks record of all civilians tried in military courts

ISLAMABAD:

The seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Thursday raised queries about the decision-making process by the military courts as it sought details of the civilians tried in in those courts so far.

During the hearing of the intra-court appeal against the apex court decision on the military trial of the civilians, the judges said that the court wanted to see the procedure, and whether the requirements of a transparent trial were met in the military court.

Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris continued his arguments. He said procedure was followed in military trials. On that Justice Hassan Rizvi remarked that the court had asked for the records of military trial cases, because the court wanted to see how the decision on evidence was taken in the trial.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that the court also wanted to see the procedure and whether the requirements of a transparent trial were met in the military court. Haris said that neither the high courts nor the Supreme Court could review the merits.

He added that the court would be shown the record of a case for review. Justice Rizvi said that the court should not discuss the evidence presented in the trial but emphasised that under the natural justice system no one could be sentenced without being heard.

Haris said that five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which ruled against the military trial of the civilians did not properly assess the point of admissibility. He added that the court could not even review the merits of the trial record.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked the whether the law on military trials of the civilians could be amended. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that the constitutional article regarding fair trial came in 2010, while the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) came in 1898, which had given the full procedure for a trial.

Justice Mandokhail raised the question as to what was the purpose of enacting the Army Act. Haris said that the purpose of the Army Act was to ensure that there was no hindrance in the activities of the armed forces. He added that the process of improving the law continued.

Justice Naeem Afghan remarked that the Army Act dealt with the officers and soldiers of the armed forces, but its Section 2 was amended in 1967 and the words "any person" were added to it after which retired officers also came under the purview of military trial.

He remarked that if this Section 2 remained invalid, then a military trial of any retired officer would not be possible, adding, if a retired person was undergoing a military trial that too would end. He said that even after the introduction of Article 10A in the Constitution, there was talk in the courts about fair trial.

Khawaja Haris said that the constitutional amendment was enacted for some other reasons. Justice Mandokhail asked the defence ministry's lawyer to try to complete his arguments on Friday (today). Later, the hearing was adjourned.

Separately, a three-member regular bench of the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of a case related to Article 191A.

Heading the bench, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that the case had not been fixed before the same regular bench that heard the case on January 13.