The Supreme Court has issued the written judgment on intra-court appeals against military trials, stating that although the Army Act contains a basic procedure, there is a lack of proper forums for appeal for ordinary citizens. Legislation should be completed within 45 days for an independent right of appeal.
In the written judgment issued by the Supreme Court on intra-court appeals, it is stated that the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court had accepted the intra-court appeals on May 7.
The Supreme Court had declared the five-judge decision on military trials null and void.
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan authored the 68-page decision, in which Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar added a 47-page additional note that was agreed upon by Justice Amin, Justice Hasan Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Shahid Bilal.
In addition, Justice Jamal Mandokhail and Justice Naeem Afghan wrote dissenting notes. The Supreme Court, in the intra-court appeal, had allowed military trials.
In the written decision, the court ordered that those convicted by military courts be given the right of appeal, and also directed the government to legislate within 45 days regarding the right to appeal.
In the written judgment, the Supreme Court wrote that the purpose of the appropriate constitutional response is not to completely invalidate the provisions of the Army Act. While the Army Act contains a basic procedure, there is a lack of an appropriate forum for appeal for ordinary citizens. Legislation should be completed to allow independent appeals in High Courts for civilians convicted by military courts.
The decision stated that during the case, the Attorney General repeatedly requested time to obtain government instructions on the right of appeal. Even at the last hearing on May 5, the Attorney General said the same.
The Attorney General said that if the court issues directions, legislation can be done in Parliament. The Attorney General said the court order will be taken seriously.
The decision said that in the absence of an independent right of appeal, the procedure present in the Army Act is not constitutionally complete for ordinary citizens. Legislative intervention is required to fulfill the deficiency of the right of appeal.
Trials under the Army Act are constitutionally placed outside the system of fundamental rights. Even in military trials, the standard set under Article 10-A must be upheld.
Trials in military courts are not in conflict with the principle of separation of powers. Article 175(3) does not negate the existence of military courts. The five-member bench had erred in reaching this conclusion.
