1 Research Assignment
CHAPTER II
Summary Of Articles
2.1 Summary (Muhammad Hassan 20/2/2023)
Military Court Trials of Civilians in Pakistan
The Conflict Between Security and Justice This research looks at the controversial
practice of trying ordinary citizens in military courts in Pakistan. While the
government often uses these courts to deal with serious threats like terrorism or
national security emergencies, the article explains that this creates a major conflict
with the country’s legal system. Under the Constitution of Pakistan, every citizen
is supposed to have the right to a fair trial in a regular civilian court. However,
military courts operate under their own strict rules, which are often secretive and
do not provide the same protections, such as the right to a public hearing or the
ability to choose any lawyer.
The Impact on Human Rights and the Law The study concludes that using military
courts for civilians weakens the power of the regular judiciary and violates
international human rights agreements that Pakistan has promised to follow.
Because military judges are part of the army and not independent like civilian
judges, there is a high risk that trials will not be fair. The article argues that instead
of relying on military trials for "quick results," the government should focus on
strengthening the civilian court system. By doing this, Pakistan can ensure that
justice is served in a way that is transparent, follows the law, and respects the basic
rights of all its citizens.
2.2 Summary (AUTHOR: MOHIT MUSADDI JULY 24, 2023)
Military Courts in Pakistan
This research article, “Military Courts in Pakistan,” discusses the controversial
decision to try more than 100 civilians in military courts after the political violence
in May 2023. The government claims these trials are needed to control terrorism
2 Research Assignment
and provide quick justice. However, the study explains that military courts follow
different rules than civilian courts. Trials are often held in secret, and accused
persons may not be allowed to choose their own lawyers, which raises serious
concerns about fairness.
The article explains that this issue is part of a long history in Pakistan. Although
military courts were formally allowed in 2015 to deal with terrorism, they have
often been used to expand military power over civilian matters. Human rights
organizations strongly criticize this practice, saying it violates the right to a fair
and open trial. The study also notes that Pakistan is the only country in South Asia
where civilians can be tried in military courts for non-military offences. In
conclusion, the author points out that the judiciary is now showing more
independence by questioning these trials and stresses that real justice can only be
achieved through a fair, open, and independent civilian court system.
2.3 Summary (Ayesha Youssuf Abbasi 2024-11-06)
Legal Framework of Civilian's Trial in the Military Courts of Pakistan Viz-a-
Viz International Fair Trial Standards
This research article looks at the legal and human rights issues involved in trying
ordinary citizens in Pakistan’s military courts. It explains that although this
practice has existed for a long time, it usually does not meet the basic standards of
a fair trial promised by Pakistan’s Constitution and international law. Military
courts are meant to maintain discipline within the army, not to try civilians. As a
result, these courts often lack openness and independence, hold secret trials, and
may deny accused persons important rights, such as choosing their own lawyer or
appealing their case in a civilian high court.
To address these problems, the paper argues that civilians should not be tried in a
separate military justice system. Instead, it recommends strengthening the civilian
courts. This includes better training for police and prosecutors, using modern
technology in courts, and providing strong protection to judges and witnesses.
3 Research Assignment
According to the study, improving the civilian justice system is the best way to
ensure fair trials and protect the rights of all citizens.
2.4 Summary (Hussain Ahmad1& Sara Qayum Pakistan Journal of
Criminology Vol.13, Issue 01, January 2021 & Vol.13, Issue02, April 2021 (48-
59)
Civilians Trials in Military Courts in Pakistan vs. The International Fair
Trial Standards on Military Justice. A Critical Analysis
This research article looks at whether trying civilians in Pakistan’s military courts
meets international standards of a fair trial. It finds that these trials usually do not
meet those standards. Military courts are less open than civilian courts and are not
fully independent because they are run by military officers who answer to their
commanders, not to independent judges. As a result, trials are often secret, and
accused persons may be denied basic rights, such as choosing their own lawyer or
appealing their case in a civilian high court.
The paper explains that using military courts is a short-term and weak solution to
security problems. Instead of depending on this separate system, the authors argue
that Pakistan should strengthen its regular justice system. This means improving
police investigations and giving civilian courts the resources, training, and
protection they need to decide all cases fairly and effectively.
2.5 Summary (Malik Muhammad Imran And Dr Fakhar Mahmood Makhdoom
Oct-Dec 2024)
The Military Trial of the Civilians: The Limits of Interpretation and
Unwritten Judicial Policy in Pakistan
This research article discusses the debated practice of trying ordinary citizens in
Pakistan’s military courts, which is often justified using the “Principle of
Necessity.” The authors explain that for many years, higher courts have relied on
4 Research Assignment
unwritten rules and flexible interpretations of the law to allow these trials.
However, this approach often goes against basic constitutional rights, such as the
right to a fair trial and due process. Although the military is supposed to assist
civilian authorities only when needed, military courts have sometimes been
allowed to act as a separate system replacing civilian courts, which the study says
is legally weak and threatens personal freedom.
The article concludes that relying on these unwritten policies has made the legal
system unstable and focused on short-term solutions rather than lasting justice.
Instead of using the military to fill gaps in the justice system, the authors argue that
courts should stop using the “Principle of Necessity” to bypass the Constitution.
They recommend strictly following written laws and strengthening the regular
judicial system so that justice is delivered in a fair, open, and transparent way for
everyone.
2.6 Summary (Nouman Ali Dalian Maritime University DOI:
[Link] Received: 25 October
2025; Accepted: 30 October 2025; Published: 18 November 2025)
Fair Trial Rights under Military Jurisdiction: Constitutional and
International Perspectives from Pakistan and the UK
This research article explores the difficult balance between national security and
the right to a fair trial when civilians are processed through military courts in
Pakistan. It explains that while the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees the right to
a fair trial under Article 10-A, this promise is often tested when military courts
take over cases that usually belong in civilian courts, such as those involving
terrorism or state security. By comparing Pakistan’s system with the United
Kingdom’s approach, the study highlights how military trials often lack
transparency, limit the accused's ability to choose their own lawyer, and make it
very difficult to appeal a decision to a higher, independent court.
The study concludes that using military courts for civilians creates a "state of
exception" where normal legal protections are pushed aside in the name of speed
5 Research Assignment
and security. This often leads to a system where the military acts as both the
prosecutor and the judge, which goes against international human rights standards
like the ICCPR. To fix this, the author suggests that Pakistan should strengthen its
civilian courts and ensure that any military trial follows strict rules of fairness. This
would protect the basic rights of citizens while still allowing the state to maintain
order, ensuring that the law serves everyone equally rather than being bypassed for
the sake of power.
2.7 Summary (Muhammad Usman1Sohail Amjad2Muhammad Imran Khan
summer 2023)
(Judicial Boundaries: Understanding the Scope of Military Courts in the
Pakistani Legal Framework)
This research article examines the long and complicated history of trying civilians
in Pakistan's military courts, often justified by a legal concept known as the
"Doctrine of Necessity." It explains that while the Constitution is meant to be the
supreme law, the judiciary has sometimes used "unwritten policies" and flexible
interpretations to allow military trials during times of political unrest or security
crises. The authors argue that this creates a confusing legal environment where the
fundamental rights of citizens, such as the right to a fair trial and due process, are
set aside to maintain state stability or "leftover continuity" from previous military
rules.
The study concludes that these military trials represent a significant departure from
standard justice, as they often rely on secret procedures and limit the power of
civilian courts to intervene. By analyzing various historical court cases, the article
shows that the legal system has struggled to permanently resolve whether civilians
should ever be subject to military law. Ultimately, the authors suggest that for
Pakistan to have a true democracy, it must move away from these temporary legal
fixes and ensure that the rights granted by the Constitution are always protected,
regardless of the political situation.
6 Research Assignment
2.8 Summary (Pakistan: ICJ denounces law permitting military trials of civilians
| International Commission of Jurists january 6, 2015)
Pakistan: ICJ denounces law permitting military trials of civilians
Following the political unrest on May 9, 2023, the Pakistani government began
trying ordinary citizens in military courts under the Pakistan Army Act of 1952.
While these courts were originally meant only for soldiers, recent constitutional
changes like the 21st and 23rd Amendments expanded their power to include
civilians accused of terrorism or attacking state buildings. Critics and human rights
groups argue that this system is unfair because trials happen behind closed doors,
judges are military officers instead of trained lawyers, and the accused are often
denied the right to a public hearing or the chance to pick their own attorney.
Even though some high court rulings have allowed these trials for the sake of
national security, they remain highly controversial because they conflict with the
"Right to a Fair Trial" promised in the Constitution. The study highlights that
military courts have an incredibly high conviction rate based on confessions, which
raises serious questions about transparency and forced statements. To ensure true
justice and follow international human rights standards, the authors suggest that
Pakistan should move away from these "secret proceedings" and instead strengthen
its regular civilian courts to handle such cases fairly and openly.
2.9 Summary (Islam. L. Rev. [Vol. 4: 1 & 2, Spring/Summer, 2020] Mirza Hasib
Hussain Baig)
Abusive Constitutionalism and Military Courts in Pakistan
This research article offers a critical look at the 21st Constitutional Amendment in
Pakistan, which empowered military courts to try civilians following the tragic
Army Public School attack in 2014. The author describes this move as "abusive
constitutionalism," arguing that while the amendment was passed using legal
methods, it ultimately undermines democracy by stripping citizens of their
fundamental rights. The study contends that these military courts operate as a
parallel justice system that violates the core principles of a fair trial, such as the
7 Research Assignment
right to an independent judge and due process, effectively placing national security
policies above the constitutional protections meant to guard the people .
The author strongly criticizes the "reactive" nature of these measures, suggesting
that relying on secret military trials is a short-term fix that fails to address the root
causes of terrorism Instead of normalizing these "exceptional" courts, which often
operate behind closed doors without public scrutiny, the article concludes that the
state should focus on strengthening the regular civilian justice system.
2.10 Summary (Shakeel Akhtar Thakur, Sana Shakeel 11 May 2024)
Military Courts and Civilian Trials: Due Process Challenges in Pakistan’s
Military Justice System
This research investigates the controversial practice of trying ordinary citizens in
Pakistan's military courts, a measure originally intended only for armed forces
personnel but expanded to civilians in the name of national security. The authors
argue that this shift has created a serious conflict with the country's constitution
and international human rights laws. Through interviews with legal experts and
analysis of court procedures, the study reveals that these trials often happen in
secret, denying the accused basic protections like the right to choose their own
lawyer or have a public hearing.
The findings paint a concerning picture of a "parallel justice system" where the
usual rules of fairness do not apply, making it nearly impossible for civilians to
appeal verdicts or effectively see the evidence against them. The article concludes
that while these courts aim to deliver "speedy justice," they ultimately weaken the
rule of law and erode public trust in the judicial system. To fix this, the authors
recommend phasing out military trials for civilians and instead strengthening the
regular courts to handle terrorism cases transparently and fairly.
2.11 Summary Bakht Munir Ataullah Khan Mahmood
Establishment of Military Courts in Pakistan and its Effects on Trichotomy of
Powers: International and Domestic Standards
8 Research Assignment
This research article explores the constitutional history and impact of military
courts in Pakistan, focusing on how they affect the traditional balance of power
between the government's branches11. The study explains that while Pakistan's
constitution is designed to divide authority between the legislature, executive, and
judiciary a concept known as the "trichotomy of powers" the establishment of
military courts to try civilians disrupts this balance 2. These courts are often
justified by the state as a "necessity" due to internal security challenges and the
need for speedy trials in terrorism cases, yet they essentially allow executive
officers to perform judicial roles, which contradicts both domestic and
international legal standards3.
The author highlights that these extraordinary measures often weaken the role of
civilian courts and can undermine a citizen's fundamental right to a fair trial 44.
Although the judiciary has sometimes been reluctant to challenge these systems in
the past, the article notes a positive trend toward judicial autonomy and the
enforcement of "checks and balances" to prevent the misuse of authority.
Ultimately, the research suggests that for a more sustainable justice system,
Pakistan should focus on introducing judicial reforms such as de-politicizing the
courts and improving accountability rather than relying on temporary military
tribunals that bypass the standard legal framework.
2.12 Summary (Muhammad Usman, Nagina Riaz, Asif Khan 3rd December 2023)
Reconciling Military Justice: Assessing Pakistan's Compliance with
International Norms
This research article examines how Pakistan’s military justice system aligns with
international human rights standards, specifically focusing on the trial of civilians.
The study explains that while military courts are often used in Pakistan to handle
serious threats like terrorism and ensure "speedy justice," they frequently clash
with global norms such as the right to a fair trial and an independent judiciary.
Because military judges are part of the executive branch and trials are often held in
secret, the system struggles to meet the transparency and impartiality requirements
set by international treaties like the ICCPR.
9 Research Assignment
The author suggests that relying on military courts is a temporary solution that
does not fix the underlying weaknesses in the civilian legal system. The article
highlights that for Pakistan to truly comply with international norms, it must focus
on long-term reforms, such as improving police investigations, protecting
witnesses, and strengthening the independence of civilian courts. Ultimately, the
research concludes that while national security is vital, it should not come at the
cost of the fundamental legal rights guaranteed to every citizen under both
domestic and international law.
2.13 Summary (Dr. Khan Faqir Muhammad Hussain)
2.14 Legitimacy Of Military Regimes And The Superior Courts In Pakistan
This research article explores the complicated relationship between the military
and the high-level courts (the Judiciary) in Pakistan’s history. It explains that since
independence, Pakistan has spent many years under military rule, where the army
often took control of the government. During these times, the military usually
weakened the power of the courts by changing how judges were appointed or
removed. The article highlights a "marriage of convenience" where the military
used the courts to give their takeover a stamp of legal approval, while the courts
often felt they had no choice but to agree to keep the country stable.
The author focuses on how the "Doctrine of Necessity" was used by judges to
justify military takeovers that technically broke the law. While the courts
sometimes tried to resist or protect the rights of citizens, they often found
themselves under the direct thumb of military leaders who could suspend the
Constitution at will. The study concludes that for a healthy democracy, the
judiciary must be completely independent and should not be used as a tool to make
illegal military regimes look legitimate.