CONSTITUTIONAL SUBVERSIONS: THE ROLE OF THE DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY IN UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN

Abstract

Pakistan's legal history has faced continuous debate about the doctrine of necessity because military leaders rely on it to take power to save public welfare or protect the state. Here we explore how Pakistan's courts accepting the doctrine of necessity harmed the development of democracy in the country. This study analyzes Pakistan's vital constitutional moments through Supreme Court decisions and global legal perspectives to determine how necessity became a foundation for ending standard democratic rule. Research uses only the original legal documents from famous cases, court decisions, and original texts of the Constitution but draws on professional academic work as secondary data. The research takes for granted that the judiciary’s power remains vulnerable due to past political manipulation of its independence. When courts approve non-constitutional rule through emergency reasons, they undermine fair rule enforcement and slow the path to democracy while reducing official oversight. This finding is the opposite of what constitutionalist theories suggest about procedure ruling above all else. The research reports that a clear opposition to and institutional removal of necessity doctrine promises to limit potential damage to democratic governance. Future constitutional amendments should make judges responsible for their decisions and build adequate protections to stop violations of constitutional rules.

Keywords:  Doctrine of Necessity, Constitutional Subversion, Judicial Legitimization, Democracy, Judicial Independence