ISLAMABAD: Every court must analyse in each case whether or not it had honoured the right of an accused to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution, the Supreme Court observed on Monday.

“On adding this fundamental right in our Constitution, the court is bound to analyse the facts and circumstances of the case to ascertain whether this indispensable right was afforded or not,” observed Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.

A two-judge Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, had taken up an appeal by Sohail Ahmed against the Federal Services Tribunal over rejection of his plea on Nov 15, 2018.

The catchphrase, “complete justice”, is actually a wide-ranging and all-inclusive expression aimed at doing justice at all costs so that the principles of fairness are not compromised or distorted on the basis of mere technicalities.

Authored by Justice Mazhar, the judgment emphasised the principles of natural justice required that a court afford an opportunity to a delinquent to defend himself and contest the charges brought against him before pronouncing its judgement in a case.

Through an office order of Aug 16, 2017, the Frontier Constabulary took punitive action against Sohail Ahmed on allegations of misconduct and transferred him from Malakand to Daryoba.

As further punishment, the appellant was declared the most junior in his platoon at Daryoba.

Sohail Ahmed lodged a departmental appeal on Jan 3, 2018, against the decision and then another on Aug 16 the same year, but the Frontier Constabulary made no reply to the pleas.

He then took his grievance to the Federal Services Tribunal, but it dismissed the plea on grounds of limitation without touching upon the merits of the case. Having exhausted all options, Sohail Ahmed filed an appeal before the apex court.

Under Article 10A of the Constitution, the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right, the judgement emphasised.

It is an elementary rule of law that no decision that affects the right of an individual should be taken without providing an opportunity to that person to offer his version, it said.

Likewise, the court added, Article 13 of the Constitution makes it clear that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once.

It is apparent that the appellant was punished twice for the same alleged offence of making a false complaint against his colleagues, who were found innocent after inquiry, the judgement said.

The punishment of transfer, and then declaring him junior on the same charge, comes within the purview of the doctrine of double jeopardy, which speaks of a legal defence to shield a person from being tried twice for the same indictment after acquittal or conviction, the Supreme Court observed.

Article 187 of the Constitution empowers the apex court to issue directives, orders or decrees for ensuring “complete justice” in a case, the judgement read.

The Supreme Court set aside the transfer order as well as the order that reversed Sohail Ahmed’s seniority in his platoon.

But the court made it clear that in case of allegations of misconduct against the appellant, the Frontier Constabulary may issue a show cause notice and if it finds the reply to be unsatisfactory, it could order a fully-fledged inquiry.

Published in Dawn, June 21st, 2022