India has stated its case before the International Court of Justice in
India v. Pakistan (Jadhav Case). As
this report notes, India contends that the military court that sentenced
Kulbhushan Jadhav to death was not independent because its judges were military officers without legal training and lack security of tenure. Presumably Pakistan will return the compliment by pointing to deficiencies in India's own military justice system, including the nonlawyer retired senior officers who sit on the Armed Forces Tribunal and the country's failure to grant trial-level judge advocates fixed terms of office or the power to make binding rulings on questions of law. (
Indian readers: please correct me if this is mistaken.) On the other hand, India does not prosecute civilians in courts-martial.
In India, military courts have no jurisdiction over civilians. A military accused being tried by a general court martial has the right to hire services of a civilian counsel for his defence. In case a military accused is being tried by a general or summary general court martial for offences having maximum punishment of death and he lacks pecuniary means; he is entitled to civilian counsel for his defence at the state expense. Any person affected by the orders, findings or orders of a court martial can file an appeal in the Armed Forces Tribunal, and further in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Tribunal.
ReplyDeleteUmesh C Jha Wg Cdr (Retd)