Jurisdiction of military courts over civilian terrorists in Pakistan: a miscarriage of justice

The jurisdiction of military courtswasextended over alleged terrorists under the Constitution (Twenty-first Amendment) Act, 2015,in order to permanently wipe out terrorism from Pakistan. The amendment was challenged and petitioners contended that jurisdiction of military courts could not be extended over alleged civilian terrorists because of their peculiarnature. Further, the presiding officer of the military court is a member of the executive,which contradicts the principle of judicial independence, an utmost essential element of safeguarding the due process of law. However, the apex court of Pakistan held that terrorism has adirect nexus with the safety and integrity of Pakistan, therefore, theParliament was competent to expand the jurisdiction of military courts over civilian terrorists in order to secure thecountry?ssafety and integrity and thus consistent with the recognized criminal justice system. This research critically analyzes the jurisdiction of military courts over civilian terrorists in accordance with the principle of judicial independence. It alsoidentifiesthebreach of thefundamental rights of alleged civilian terrorists. This study also determines the capability of existing criminal lawstatutes of ensuring peace whilst maintaining justicefor the accused persons.In ordertoachievethese objectives, this articleadopts a doctrinal research method and carries out an in-depth analysis of the amendmentsand judgments relating to the issue,whilealso highlightingthe constitutionalityof the subject matter. Aside from that, juristic literaturesand judgments of the superior courtsare also analysed. The study concludes that an independent judicial tribunal is absolutely essential in order to ensure that justice is dispensedto the accused. It is furtherargued thatthe scope of the military justice system is limitedto military personnel,which therefore cannot and should not be expanded over civilian terrorists