Daily Times

Allowing military courts to announce verdicts for civilians being tried for their alleged role in last May’s attacks on army installations, the Supreme Court’s seven-judge bench has breathed new life into the raging debate surrounding military justice.

The legal fraternity stands divided, adding to the murkiness, with one half determined to advocate for the independence of the judiciary and others questioning the efficacy of the civilian justice system, especially when the neutrality of the superior courts had become a moot point in recent times. What is crucial to deliberate here are the implications of this move on the right to a free trial guaranteed by the Constitution.

To address the reservations being raised against the timing and specificity of the cases, those at the helm of affairs could have opted for a transparent and well-established argument linking insurgency, among other threats, to national security.

The utility of military courts in maintaining internal discipline within armed institutions may add to the credence, but only if the right to due process of law is respected and shown to be recognized. Therefore, the government would need to clarify the rationale behind this decision.

Letting wild tempests brew in teacups is no solution, especially as many call for a solid legal framework. A good starting point could have been to dismiss any concerns regarding granting blanket approval for arbitrary prosecution.

Whichever cases were to be referred to military courts should be deliberated upon by the people’s representatives, with due consideration of adherence to legal procedures.

Even if the state wishes to send a clear message about its willingness to unleash the full force of the law to all those who devise schemes to sow discord, it still needs to care for the optics. At the end of the day, “justice should not only be done but seen to have been done.” *