More than a legal dispute, this is a fight for the soul of our judiciary — for a system in which justice is not only done, but remains visibly independent and constitutionally grounded.
Malik Haris Bhachar | Mianwali
I write with grave concern over the recent move by four Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges — Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Saman Rifat Imtiaz — to challenge the 27th Constitutional Amendment in the Supreme Court. Their decision to invoke the Court’s original jurisdiction (once rooted in Article 184(3)) marks a pivotal moment in Pakistan’s ongoing struggle to preserve judicial independence.
At the heart of their petition lies a profound constitutional argument: the 27th Amendment jeopardizes the separation of powers by subordinating the judiciary to the executive. According to the draft petition, the new amendment undermines Articles 9, 10A, and 25—guaranteeing fundamental rights such as due process, fair trial, and equal protection under the law. The judges contend that the terms of service for sitting judges have been altered in ways that violate the very foundation of constitutional justice.
Particularly alarming is the establishment of a Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) through this amendment. The petitioners accuse the executive of “handpicking” the first batch of FCC judges even before the amendment was passed, bypassing merit-based selection, and thereby sowing the seeds of a parallel judicial structure. The FCC, by design, binds all other courts while remaining itself unbound by precedent — a configuration unseen in common-law jurisdictions, which raises the specter of unchecked executive influence.
The judges also challenge the altered makeup of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) and the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), pointing out that they now contain a majority of non-judicial or executive-appointed members. As they put it, decades of merit-based appointment risk being replaced by “an election by an executive-dominated electoral college.”
Read: 27th Amendment Threatens Pakistan’s Judiciary And Undermines The Charter Of Democracy
Perhaps most fundamentally, the petition argues that only the Supreme Court — not the FCC — should have the authority to assess the constitutionality of the amendment. After all, the FCC was itself created by that very amendment. To grant the FCC power to “judge its own birth,” as the judges call it, would undermine core principles of separation of powers and judicial review.
Disturbingly, court officials have declined to accept the petition, suggesting that the Supreme Court may lack jurisdiction because the matter concerns a constitutional amendment. But the petitioners reject this logic, reminding us that the SC’s inherent power to interpret the Constitution cannot simply be ousted by a newly formed body whose very legitimacy depends on that amendment.
The proposed sidelining of the Supreme Court and the creation of an FCC with potentially executive-controlled judges pose a real danger to the rule of law in Pakistan. When the forum tasked with protecting constitutional order depends on the very amendment it must review, the risk of bias is too high.
In light of these developments, I urge the Supreme Court to take up this petition. More than a legal dispute, this is a fight for the soul of our judiciary — for a system in which justice is not only done, but remains visibly independent and constitutionally grounded.
Read: 27th Amendment: Return of Guardian State
____________________
Muhammad Haris is resident of Mianwali, Punjab
