akistan has long had military courts and too frequently relied on those for swift justice than is reassuring in a democratic society. The Pakistan Army Act, 1952, limits their jurisdiction primarily to military personnel. However, their jurisdiction was expanded significantly following the 21st Constitutional Amendment (2015), in the aftermath of the 2014 Army Public School, Peshawar, terrorist attack. This amendment empowered military courts to try civilians accused of terrorism-related offences, fundamentally altering the legal landscape. The recent sentencing by these courts of 85 civilians, including retired military officers and relatives of prominent political leaders, has reignited the debate over their legality, transparency and adherence to constitutional and international human rights standards.

Military courts in Pakistan derive their authority from the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, along with the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, and the Pakistan Navy Ordinance, 1961. Under ordinary circumstances, these courts try offences committed by military personnel or civilians explicitly covered under military laws, such as individuals collaborating with armed forces in restricted zones. The 21st Constitutional Amendment (2015) marked a critical departure from this. Enacted initially for two years, and later extended through the 23rd Constitutional Amendment (2017), it allowed military courts to try civilians charged with terrorism-related offences, particularly those targeting military installations or personnel. These amendments, justified as extraordinary measures to address a surge in terrorism, effectively created a parallel judicial system. Under Article 245 of the constitution, the armed forces are tasked with defending Pakistan against external aggression and aiding civilian authorities when called upon. However, military courts have gradually assumed a broader role to include the domain traditionally reserved for civilian courts.

The right to fair trial and due process is enshrined in Article 10A of the constitution, which mandates transparency, adequate legal representation and impartial tribunals. Critics argue that military court trials inherently lack these attributes. The summary nature of proceedings, limited access to independent counsel and the secretive environment in which trials are conducted are frequently cited as violations of these constitutional safeguards. Furthermore, military court verdicts are not always made public and the reasoning behind convictions can remain undisclosed. This opacity restricts meaningful appellate review and raises questions about the genuineness of voluntary confessions.

The jurisdiction of military courts has been repeatedly challenged in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. In 2015, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of military courts under the 21st Amendment but emphasised that proceedings must comply with constitutional guarantees, particularly Article 10A. More recently, petitions have been filed to question whether military courts should retain jurisdiction over civilian suspects. The arguments against military court jurisdiction include the establishment of a parallel judiciary, which undermines the civilian judicial system by creating a dual-track. Critics also point out that military courts were introduced as a temporary measure to address an extraordinary security situation, and their continued operation lacks justification. Additionally, the selective application of military court jurisdiction, especially in politically sensitive cases, raises concerns about impartiality.

Pakistan is a signatory to several international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 14 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Military courts, due to their institutional structure and limited transparency, are viewed as incompatible with these obligations. International organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have consistently criticised Pakistan’s reliance on military courts for trying civilians. Recently, the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union issued statements condemning the sentencing of 85 civilians by military courts, highlighting concerns about transparency, due process and adherence to international standards.

The functioning of military courts in Pakistan is not divorced from the political context. The recent trials and convictions of civilians linked to political parties have fuelled perceptions of targeted accountability. Allegations of bias in case selection can weaken public confidence in these courts as impartial arbiters of justice. Successive governments have relied on military courts as expedient tools for addressing terrorism while neglecting to strengthen civilian judicial institutions.

The continued reliance on military courts highlights structural weaknesses in the judicial system resulting in delays, corruption and inefficient prosecution. Addressing these issues requires significant judicial reforms aimed at enhancing the capacity, transparency and efficiency of civilian courts. The role of anti-terrorism courts must also be reinforced by providing better resources and security for judges and witnesses. It has been argued that military courts should be phased out through substantial investment in civilian judicial infrastructure.

The recent sentencing of 85 civilians by military courts has brought renewed scrutiny to their jurisdiction, fairness and compatibility with constitutional and international human rights standards. Since military courts were established as a temporary measure to combat extraordinary threats, their extended jurisdiction raises significant legal and ethical concerns. The right to a fair trial, guaranteed under Article 10A of the constitution and international legal instruments, must remain paramount. A failure to address these concerns risks perpetuating a parallel justice system, eroding constitutional guarantees and undermining public confidence in the rule of law.

The writer is an advocate of High Court, a founding partner at Lex Mercatoria and a visiting teacher at Bahria University’s Law Department. She can be reached at minahil.ali12@yahoo.com