Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail emphasized that formal charges must be established before a person can face trial under the Army Act.
During a Supreme Court session on the Army Act, Justice Mandokhail clarification on intra-court appeals about the trial of civilians in military courts, as conducted by a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court.
The bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and including Justices Jamal Mandokhel, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal, focused on the specifics of the Army Act’s application. Defence lawyer Khawaja Haris elucidated the process of framing charges, detailing the roles of the police and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).
Responding to Justice Rizvi, Haris discussed how a commanding officer initiates an inquiry post-charge framing. Justice Hilali inquired about the subsequent steps, such as inquiry procedures and registering the First Information Report (FIR). Haris emphasized that “charge” refers to the allegations that form the investigation’s foundation, reinforcing Justice Mandokhail’s stance that trying a suspect under the Army Act requires formal charge framing.
The conversation took an interesting turn towards the attire of military court judges, sparking a debate on impartiality when Haris confirmed they wore uniforms. This led to a light-hearted exchange about the uniformity of attire in different judicial contexts, prompting laughter with Haris’s remark comparing the traditional black robes to military uniforms.
Read: JCP to Decide on Appointment of Eight Supreme Court Judges on Feb 11
Justice Hilali questioned the equivalence of military and traditional judicial garb, prompting a broader discussion on legal fairness led by Justice Mandokhail. He affirmed the law’s equal application across all citizens, prompting Haris to outline the enforcement of these laws, especially in court-martial settings where decisions often hinge on majority votes.
As the dialogue continued, Justice Mazhar raised concerns about the consistent application of the law, with Haris noting the possibility for the accused to challenge court-martial judges. This reflection prompted Justice Hilali to comment on the growing scrutiny of judges in civilian courts, highlighting the broader implications of judicial integrity and public trust in legal institutions.
