Due Process and Algorithmic Governance: Rethinking Article 10A in Pakistan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32350/lpr.52.05Keywords:
administrative law, algorithmic decision-making, Article 10A, constitutional law, , digital governance, due processAbstract
Algorithmic decision-making has moved from peripheral experimentation to routine deployment within Pakistan’s administrative framework. State agencies increasingly rely on data-driven systems to classify, prioritise, and trigger legal consequences in domains ranging from taxation and welfare to surveillance and administrative screening (Harrison & Luna-Reyes, 2020; Katzenbach & Ulbricht, 2019). This expansion has occurred in the absence of a coherent constitutional framework governing how such systems interact with procedural guarantees. Article 10A of the Constitution, which secures the right to a fair trial and due process, has been interpreted predominantly through the lens of adjudicatory proceedings and human decision-makers. Its capacity to regulate algorithmically mediated governance remains under-theorised.
This article provides a doctrinal legal analysis of Article 10A in the context of contemporary automated decision-making within public administration. Drawing on constitutional jurisprudence, administrative law principles, and comparative legal scholarship on automated decision-making, it examines whether existing procedural guarantees meaningfully constrain algorithmic systems embedded within public administration. The analysis identifies a structural mismatch between Article 10A’s doctrinal assumptions, centred on notice, hearing, and reasoned decisions, and the operational characteristics of algorithmic systems, including opacity, inference-based classification, and pre-adjudicatory impact (Coglianese & Lehr, 2019; Suksi, 2021).
The findings reveal a constitutional lacuna: algorithmic decisions frequently shape legal outcomes before procedural safeguards are triggered, rendering judicial review an incomplete remedy. The article contributes by reconceptualising Article 10A as a design-stage constitutional constraint applicable to administrative decision-making frameworks involving automated systems, rather than solely as a litigation right. It situates due process as an embedded requirement of algorithmic systems deployed by the state, thereby extending Article 10A’s normative reach to contemporary forms of public decision-making.
Downloads
References
Abbas, M. M. S. (2024). Procedural justice and the right to a fair trial in Pakistan (Doctoral dissertation).
Abdelnour, K., Benyoussef, S., & Maseko, T. (2023). Digital surveillance, biometric governance, and the erosion of informational privacy: A constitutional law perspective. Legal Studies in Digital Age, 2(4), 48–60.
Asian Development Bank. (2025). Pakistan’s digital ecosystem: A diagnostic report. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/1067316/pakistan-digital-ecosystem-diagnostic-report.pdf
Baig, K., Ahmed, S., Hussain, T., & Raza, M. (2023). Judicial review and the role of higher courts in protecting fundamental rights in Pakistan. Business & Economic Review, 15(3), 888–894.
Beduschi, A. (2021). Rethinking digital identity for post-COVID-19 societies: Data privacy and human rights considerations. Data & Policy, 3, e15. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2021.7
Coglianese, C., & Lehr, D. (2019). Transparency and algorithmic governance. Administrative Law Review, 71(1), 1–56.
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union.
Federal Government Employees Housing Authority v. Ednan Syed, PLD 2025 SC 11 (Supreme Court of Pakistan).
Goudge, A. (2021). Administrative law, artificial intelligence, and procedural rights. Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues, 42, 17–56.
Government Digital Service. (2025, May 8). Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard: Guidance for public sector bodies. GOV.UK.
Hamilton, M. (2021). Evaluating algorithmic risk assessment. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 34(2), 389–440.
Harrison, T. M., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2020). Cultivating trustworthy artificial intelligence in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101489
Hjelholt, M. F. (2024). The absorbent digital welfare state: Silencing dissent, steering progress. Journal of Sociology, 60(3), 643–659.
Jawwad S. Khawaja v. Federation of Pakistan, 2023 S.C.L.R. 31 (Supreme Court of Pakistan).
Katzenbach, C., & Ulbricht, L. (2019). Algorithmic governance. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1424
Khalid Mehmood v. Pakistan, Civil Petition No. 2202 of 2025 (Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan, Nov. 27, 2025)
Khokhar, M. A. (2025). Administrative discretion and judicial review in Pakistan. Sindh Journal of Legal Studies, 1(1), 1–25.
Koniakou, V. (2021). Governing artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making: Human rights and beyond. Computer Law & Security Review, 41, 105530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105530
Kushner, H. L. (1986). The right to reasons in administrative law. Administrative Law Review, 38(2), 205–226.
Ministry of Information Technology & Telecommunication. (2025). National Artificial Intelligence Policy. Government of Pakistan.
Munir, A. I. (2023). Due process in the 1973 Constitution and its judicialization. Pakistan Journal of Public Administration, 4(2), 2491–2500.
Rana, M. A. (2024, February 12). Punjab Safe Cities Authority (PSCA) – A review case study [Case study paper, Institute of Administrative Sciences, University of the Punjab].
Roig, A. (2017). Safeguards for the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing (Article 22 GDPR). European Journal of Law and Technology, 8(3).
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf v. Election Commission of Pakistan, PLD 2024 Islamabad 1 (Islamabad High Court).
Richards, N. M. (2013). The dangers of surveillance. Harvard Law Review, 126(7), 1934–1965.
Rohila, H. (2025, July 22). Lawless digital dreams. The Express Tribune. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2557137/lawless-digital-dreams
Saleem, M. M. (2025). Right to fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan: Judicial evolution and limitations. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 12(1), 1–24.
Shaikh, K. (2024). The right to fair trial in Pakistan: Scope and challenges. Academic International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2), 2491–2500.
Suksi, M. (2021). Administrative due process when using automated decision-making. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 29(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09269-x
Taib, M. N. A., & Rehman, F. U. (2025). Artificial intelligence and public governance in Pakistan: A case study of NADRA. International Journal of Political Science, 5(2), 70–82.
Terzidou, K. (2022). The use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary and its compliance with the right to a fair trial. European Journal of Law and Technology, 13(1).
Thouvenin, F., Früh, A., & Henseler, S. (2022). Article 22 GDPR on automated individual decision-making: Prohibition or data subject right? European Data Protection Law Review, 2, 183–196.
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2025, June 24). Directive on automated decision-making. Government of Canada.
Umar, M., Sarwar, R., & Malik, S. A. (2025). The role of the Supreme Court in protecting fundamental rights in Pakistan. Journal of Political Studies and Analysis, 8(1), 1–22.
van Toorn, G., Henman, P., & Soldatić, K. (2024). Introduction to the digital welfare state: Contestations, considerations and entanglements. Journal of Sociology, 60(3), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833241234566
Werner, J. (2025, April 18). Supreme Court of Pakistan urges cautious, ethical use of AI in judiciary. BABL AI. https://babl.ai/supreme-court-of-pakistan-urges-cautious-ethical-use-of-ai-in-judiciary/
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sibghat Ullah Sheikh, Simra Sohail
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
LPR follow an open-access publishing policy and full text of all published articles is available free, immediately upon publication of an issue. The journal’s contents are published and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) license. Thus, the work submitted to the journal implies that it is original, unpublished work of the authors (neither published previously nor accepted/under consideration for publication elsewhere). On acceptance of a manuscript for publication, a corresponding author on the behalf of all co-authors of the manuscript will sign and submit a completed the Copyright and Author Consent Form.
