Vacancies on India's Armed Forces Tribunal

The Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association (Regional Bench) has filed a petition with the Supreme Court of India concerning the government's failure to fill vacancies on the AFT.  Details here. Excerpt:

The advocate appearing for the petitioner said out of the 11 benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), only three would be functional by the end of the year if the vacancies were not filled.

The plea sought a direction to the Centre to complete the process of selection and fill the vacancies in the AFT in a time-bound manner so as to comply with Section 5 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

Section 5 of the Act deals with the composition of the tribunal and its benches.

The petition has also sought a direction that the present judicial and administrative members of the tribunal shall continue to remain in office, subject to their consent for continuance, till such time the necessary appointments are made.

Bait-and-switch in Pakistan

Remember that case in which a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld (5-2) military trials of civilians despite the absence of a constitutional amendment -- on condition that the government provide a right of independent appellate review. The majority in Shuhada Forum, Balochistan v. Justice (R) Jawwad S. Khawaja, 2025 SCP 165, afforded the government 45 days in which to institute that remedy.

Guess what? Nothing has been done. This article from The Express Tribune tells the depressing tale. Excerpt:

Barrister Asad Rahim Khan argued that even the limited appellate safeguard was insufficient from the outset.

"Even as far as sops went, however, this one too was withheld. After all, the decision's main consequence was not to provide an additional floor of appeal. It was to validate military tribunals of civilians outside a declared state of exception, and outside a constitutional amendment – the first time in our history," he noted.

He further stated that implementation of even these limited safeguards had been further complicated by the creation of the FCC, which he described as an aberration within a common law system that has weakened binding precedent.

Barrister Sameer Khosa said the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court required the federal government to provide an appeal to the convicts, but the government has not even pretended to offer one.

Barrister Rida Hosain, who assisted one of the petitioners challenging military trials, says that the Supreme Court accepted that there was no independent right to appeal under the Army Act. Under the military law, the right to appeal lies to a court of appeal consisting of the Chief of Army Staff or one or more officers designated by him. The appellate forum is composed of serving military officers who remain subject to the same command structure. An appeal, within the military structure, is an appeal to a hierarchy that has an institutional interest in defending its own processes. 

"Despite a time-bound directive, the Government has failed to take steps to initiate legislation. Those convicted by military courts are left without access to an independent appellate forum. The consequences of inaction are stark. Civilians have been deprived of their liberty by military courts without any independent appeal. The failure to legislate destroys the constitutional promise of due process and protection against wrongful deprivation of liberty. It places citizens at the mercy of a system that is structurally incapable of independent appeal. The government’s inaction reflects its sheer disregard for judicial orders", she adds.

Jurisdictional boundaries issue at Indonesia's Constitutional Court

Where is the boundary between military and civilian court jurisdiction? That is a current issue before the Indonesian Constitutional Court, according to this account. Excerpt:

Dr. Nanik Prasetyoningsih, SH, MH, an expert in Constitutional Law at Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (UMY) , also shared his views. According to Nanik, the main problem does not lie in the existence of military justice. However, problems arise because the jurisdictional boundaries between this special forum and ordinary courts are not yet clearly defined.

"The main problem lies in the blurring of the boundaries between jurisdictions based on the status of the perpetrator and the type of crime," Nanik said in an online interview on Saturday (May 2).

He explained that legal practice in that country has traditionally focused on the perpetrator's status. If the perpetrator is a TNI soldier, the case is automatically referred to that group. However, in a modern state governed by the rule of law, a more appropriate criterion is the type of violation and its relation to the function of self-defense.

The urgency of separating common crimes

According to Nanik, the court's authority should be limited to offenses directly related to military duties. He emphasized that soldiers who violate common law should be tried in district courts.

"If the crime involves murder, drug trafficking, corruption, or domestic violence, then, constitutionally, it would be more appropriate to examine it through the general legal system," Nanik emphasized.

Furthermore, Nanik highlighted a phrase in the law that grants broad authority to prosecute criminal offenses without clear limits. This creates legal uncertainty, as the boundaries of this authority are very imprecise.

Where should this case be tried? (this time it's Indonesia)

The New York Times reports here on a nasty case from Indonesia: an acid attack on a human rights activist. The case has been moved to military court. Excerpt:

Mr. Prabowo promised a thorough investigation.

“This is a barbaric act, we must pursue it,” the president said in remarks released  a week after the attack. “We must investigate. Who ordered them, who paid.”

Days later, the general who headed the military’s main intelligence arm, the Strategic Intelligence Agency, quietly resigned. He is not known to be facing any charges.

But on March 31, the police announced that the case had been transferred to the military, which meant that military prosecutors would have the ability to limit the scope of the investigation and determine what information is made public.