ISLAMABAD – Denying charge-sheet to an accused of court martial before confirmation of his sentence is unlawful, the supreme court Friday observed while hearing a 13 years old petition pointing out lacunas in the military laws.
A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed that importance of due process of law and the fundamental rights has increased in the post-18th amendment scenario. Petitioner Col (r) Muhammad Akram has challenged non-provision of reasons and the findings of the trial to the convict/guilty, saying it is in negation to the due process of law and he has sought amendment in the Pakistan Army Act 1952. This was against the norm of basic justice and also a violation of article 10A of the constitution that an accused of court martial is kept in dark about charges framed against him before confirmation of his sentence, the court observed. Justice Jawwad S Khawaja remarked that since the colonial era reasons are given to the convicts; moreover, the due process and the fundamental rights have become more important after 18th amendment.
Major Shah Jahan from JAG branch of the army said that suitable opportunity of appeal has been granted in the existing law and that the establishment of courts of appeals under the Army Act 1952 has afforded an appellate forum to the convicts where the point of law and facts can be argued at length.
The CJ said when the reasons are not given then it does not fulfil the requirement of fair trial, which is a fundamental right of every citizen as per the constitution. The CJ stated that the reasons are provided to the accused even in the murder cases.
Col (r) Akram also informed the court that findings of the trial are provided to the accused in the Navy and the Air Force, but not in the Army. In his plea, he has termed such clauses of the Army Act as discriminatory and against the constitution and sought amendment to them.
“Section 31 of the Army Act allows an accused to submit a petition against the findings or decision of a military court,” Ikram maintained, adding; “the finding(s) and sentence of all military courts except the summaries are required to be confirmed.” He said it is discriminatory and unconstitutional if the verdicts by military courts are not immediately announced and given to the accused. The case was adjourned until August 27.