Against a wave of outrage from the affected, the Supreme Court appeared firm on Wednesday as it provisionally approved military court trials of more than 100 accused of ransacking armed forces’ installations.
The criticism seems largely misplaced as the bench has barred military courts from issuing any convictions before the constitutional debate on the legality of these trials is resolved.
There is a need to take the proverbial bull by its horns and lay out the parameters once and for all. A judiciary truly interested in the scope and mandate of specific institutions in the light of the constitution could neither plan out nor play bad cards for the sake of newsworthy judgements. Therefore, it can only be hoped that the upcoming hearings would contemplate upon the capacity of the civilian justice system to finally bid adieu to all ad-hoc arrangements so that it alone can provide lasting and effective relief to the masses.
Have we not heard of multitudes of accused dashing for an exit through one of the several loopholes? Does our judiciary system not routinely top the list for extremely low conviction rates and the ease with which witnesses back out and shoddy investigation kick the goal for the accused’s side? In today’s day and age when terrorist forces wish to send out a message of their tenacity, there is a need – greater than ever before – to to deal with the enemies of the state. Just as before, the uptick in extremist activities calls for attention from all institutions of the state. Back in 2015, the then government had greenlit the amendment to facilitate military trials so that the unforgettable APS tragedy would not be repeated.
With every attack on the armed institutions and civilians, the terrorist networks are desperately trying to reclaim their space. Nevertheless, the temptation of the sordid political soap operas should be resisted as allowing tainted aspirations to get in the way of a clear-cut procedure would be akin to shooting oneself in the foot. *