ISLAMABAD: Hearing a 13-year old pending case regarding an amendment in the Army Act 1952, the Supreme Court on Friday accepted a petition challenging provisions of the act for regular hearing.
The court also issued notices to defence authorities and the attorney general of Pakistan to appear before the court and adjourned the case till the last week of August.
A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry heard the petition filed by Colonel (retd) Muhammad Akram, who served in the army for over 30 years in army’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) Branch. He termed clauses of the Army Act which are against the Constitution and submitted that such discriminatory clauses should be amended.
The petitioner stated that it is discriminatory and against the Constitution if the verdicts by military courts are not immediately announced to the accused which makes him unable to file any application. Col Akram also said that a civil court is bound to give reasons to a murderer when awarding him a sentence as per the Constitution, but the army courts only relied on words “the charge has been proved” which was unfair and unconstitutional.
Deputy Assistant Advocate General of JAG branch Major Shahjahan also appeared before the court and said that the Army Act does allow for a fair trial of the accused person.
The chief justice asked if findings are not announced before confirmation then how one can file an appeal and get the opportunity of a fair trial.
In his application, petitioner Akram maintained that to take a statement from an accused on oath during a court martial and then use it against him as evidence is contradictory to the Qanoon-e-Shahadat and that the Constitution does not allow compelling an accused to give statements on oath.
“Section 31 of the Army Act allows an accused to submit a petition against the findings or decision of a military court,” Akram maintained, adding that “the finding(s) and sentence of all military courts except the summaries are required to be confirmed”.
Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said that defence authorities should also consider Article 10A of the Constitution that gives due process right to every person. The court also asked Major Shahjahan why the Article 10A of the Constitution that was introduced through the passage of 18th Amendment during martial law trials was not considered.
The court also said that the army authorities should consider the recording of reasons and decide the giving findings on the charge, and the judgment should have certain grounds.
Col Akram said that the criminal jurisprudence tendered prevailing in Pakistan does not allow that the statement of the accused person should be recorded on oath and also of the witness during investigation whether he is from the prosecution or defence, adding that the army authorities were wrongly interpreting Article 44 of Qanoon-e-Shahdat which laid down that the accused person shall be liable to cross examination.
This wrong amendment is incorporated in the Pakistan Army Act rule 13, which is related to the summary of evidence, the petitioner said.
COMMENTS (12)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
. As if the Judicial System has solved the problems of the people with whom it is concerned, that it is now going to settle the issues of Armed forces of Pakistan. Armed forces are functioning well and it should not be destabilized well with in its own system. The Judiciary must refrain from destabilizing every institution. May be the bite is bigger than the mouth and this may not be digested well.
I'll deliberate on this very soon.
@Truth Detector: MIRZA itself says all about this person. MIRZAs during Mughal time and later on ;)
Is it of public interest for the supreme court judges to declare their assets, and their take home salary, including all perks and privileges? And the number of cases disposed off in a month, as well as how much TA/DA was secured in that period. Can someone please file a petition under freedom of information act, as I as a citizen want to know!
Mirza,
Why won't u support cases against abuse of executive authority by ruling politicians? They are firstly the matters of public interest. Or is it that you are biased in favour of the present NRO Government and its Dogar Court?
very good job i like your news website very much
@Truth Detector: I would support every action and decision that is to solve the problems of masses. Does not matter who is getting the credit. From this case to Asghar Khan's case which is even older than this, Mehran Bank, Abbottabad Commission, Bughti, BB, Taseer and Bhatti murder cases, ISI stealing money and distributing among rightwing politicians to steal elections against PPP/BB, ZAB murder review case, M. Mai's review petition, Arsalan’s empire of a billion and many other cases among 20 thousand languishing in the SC. Regards, Mirza
Which cases are of public interests? If you people know then take those to SC, you people have no work except maligning the judiciary.
@Mirza supporting (PCO) SC ?
no one should be above law..we support sc
The "sacred cow" status of the real power holders in Pakistan should be abolished. Justice needs to be done through constitutional guidelines whether it is Civil or military court.
May Allah ( swt ) preserve this Supreme court for a long time. They are making fundamental institutional changes in Pakistan's Laws.
All right thinking Pakistanis should support this SC, if they want rule of Jungle to go away and rule of Law to take effect.
"Hearing a 13-year old pending case" Looks like the PCO SC has found some time to take up decades old cases. Perhaps there are no new political or manufactured cases on the horizon? Nice to see the SC waking up after a long hibernation to take up the cases of public interest.