THE DOCTRINE OF MILITARY NECESSITY: A LEGAL LOOPHOLE FOR EXECUTIVE OVERREACH?

The doctrine of military necessity presents a complex legal challenge, as it allows the state to restrict fundamental rights in the interest of national security. However, the extent of these restrictions and their constitutional validity remain subjects of judicial scrutiny. This paper examines how military necessity is used to justify such limitations and explores where the legal boundary should be drawn to prevent overreach. A key focus is the Supreme Court of India's interpretation of habeas corpus in cases involving military necessity. Landmark judgments reveal how the Court has balanced individual liberty with national security, sometimes deferring to executive decisions while, in other cases, reinforcing constitutional protections. This research critically analyzes these rulings to assess the judiciary's role in ensuring accountability in military-related detentions. Further, the paper examines military tribunals and their place in administrative law. While they serve as specialized adjudicatory bodies for armed forces personnel, concerns persist regarding their compliance with principles of judicial review and due process. The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and relevant case laws provide insight into whether these tribunals uphold fair trial standards or fall short of constitutional guarantees. By analyzing key judgments and legal principles, this research aims to contribute to the ongoing debate on balancing national security with fundamental rights. It underscores the need for a legal framework that ensures both security and constitutional integrity. Keywords: Doctrine of Military Necessity, Fundamental Rights, Habeas Corpus, Military Tribunals, Due Process