The concept of a trial is straightforward. You stand before a judge. Your accuser stands before a judge. The public watches. This keeps the process honest. When courts start holding "faceless" trials—where the accused can't see who is testifying or where the proceedings happen behind closed prison doors—the entire foundation of justice crumbles.
The Balochistan High Court recently stepped in to address this growing problem. By issuing notices regarding these opaque judicial practices, the court has signaled that even under the Anti-Terrorism Act, constitutional protections aren't optional. It's a move that should have happened sooner.
The Problem With Faceless Proceedings
If you’re wondering what a "faceless" trial actually looks like, it’s exactly what it sounds like. It’s an environment where the accused is denied the most basic components of a fair fight. We are talking about proceedings held inside prison walls, away from public eyes, and often without the defendant even knowing who is accusing them.
The petition filed by leaders of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee—including Mahrang Baloch—isn't just about their personal cases. It's about a systematic drift toward secret justice. When you remove the element of an open court, you lose the primary check on judicial overreach. Judges can feel administrative pressure more easily. Lawyers get restricted access to their clients. Transparency? It basically vanishes.
Why This Matters for Everyone
You might think, "I’m not involved in a terrorism case, so this doesn't affect me." You're wrong. If the state establishes that it can conduct trials in secret, it sets a dangerous precedent. Today it’s one group of political activists. Tomorrow, these same procedural shortcuts could apply to anyone the authorities decide is an inconvenience.
The petition correctly points out that these notifications contradict fundamental articles of the Constitution of Pakistan. We're talking about Articles 4, 9, 10-A, 14, 25, and 175(3). These aren't minor guidelines. These are the pillars of due process and equal protection under the law.
What the Petition Actually Demands
The petitioners aren't asking for special treatment. They are asking for:
- An end to prison-based hearings. Trials belong in courthouses, not within the confines of administrative facilities where the state holds all the cards.
- Unrestricted access for legal counsel. A defense lawyer who can't speak privately with their client is just a prop.
- The restoration of public, open-court access. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for judicial corruption and overreach.
- Protection from administrative influence. Judges need to be independent. If they feel like they are working under orders from intelligence or interior agencies, they aren't judges. They are administrators of a foregone conclusion.
The Real Stakes for Judicial Independence
I’ve seen how these dynamics play out in various jurisdictions. Once you allow for "closed-door" justice, it becomes addictive for the executive branch. They stop building actual cases and start relying on intimidation. The High Court's decision to issue notices means they recognize the gravity of this situation. The state must now explain its actions.
This isn't just about administrative law. It's about whether the judiciary still has the spine to stand up to the state.
Next Steps for Advocacy
If you’re following this case, watch the respondent replies. When the state is forced to articulate their legal reasoning for bypassing open-court standards, that’s when the cracks in their argument will appear.
- Watch the court schedule. Pay attention to when these notices are returned.
- Read the legal briefs. Understand how the prosecution justifies "faceless" witnesses. It’s usually a flimsy argument about security that ignores the rights of the accused.
- Demand transparency. Support organizations that monitor these specific court cases. Keeping the public informed is the only way to ensure the pressure stays on the judiciary to uphold the law rather than bending to government mandates.
The courtroom is either open to everyone, or it's not a court at all. It's just an office for sentencing. If we don't demand the former, we've already accepted the latter.
