Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail of the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench recently made headlines with his 36-page dissenting note challenging the majority verdict that upheld the trial of civilians in military courts. In a thought-provoking dissent, Justice Mandokhail raised crucial questions about the use of military courts for civilian cases, emphasizing that “Nowhere in the world, courts martial try terrorism-related cases.” This dissenting note stemmed from a larger debate within the legal landscape of Pakistan regarding the role and jurisdiction of military courts in handling civilian trials.
Justice Mandokhail, along with Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, presented a minority judgement that set aside intra-court appeals against a previous ruling that had declared military trials of civilians illegal. The dissenting judges highlighted the misconception that civil courts were ineffective in addressing terrorism and argued against the notion that military courts were the sole solution to this complex issue. Justice Mandokhail eloquently explained that courts martial lacked the jurisdiction to handle cases of terrorism or other criminal matters, challenging the narrative that civilian courts were incapable of delivering justice effectively.
The dissenting note also delved into the broader implications of relying on military courts instead of strengthening the existing judicial system. Justice Mandokhail expressed regret that instead of addressing politically motivated cases and enhancing investigative mechanisms, the government had chosen to burden military courts with significant responsibilities. He emphasized the importance of upholding fundamental rights in legal proceedings, underlining that denying these rights could have severe consequences on democracy, citizen welfare, and the rule of law.
Furthermore, Justice Mandokhail shed light on the expertise and independence of judicial officers compared to military personnel presiding over courts martial. He argued that while military officers might excel in handling military-related matters, they lacked the necessary judicial experience to adjudicate criminal cases effectively. This distinction underscored the importance of maintaining a separation between military and civilian judicial functions to uphold trust and confidence in the legal system.
The dissenting note resonated with fundamental principles of fair trial and due process, emphasizing the significance of the right to appeal as a safeguard against miscarriages of justice. Justice Mandokhail’s analysis touched upon constitutional provisions and legal frameworks, highlighting the delicate balance between national security interests and individual rights within the realm of legal proceedings.
In conclusion, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail’s dissenting note serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities surrounding the use of military courts in civilian trials. It prompts a critical reflection on the balance between security imperatives and the protection of fundamental rights within the legal framework, urging stakeholders to prioritize strengthening civilian judicial institutions to ensure justice and uphold the rule of law.
Leave feedback about this