Ansar Mahmood Bhatti
ISLAMABAD: The country’s legal and political landscape has been thrown into fresh turmoil following the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment a move the government hails as a milestone in judicial reform, but which critics see as a grave threat to judicial independence and the supremacy of the Constitution.
Adding to the unfolding judicial drama, Chief Justice Yahya Afridi is set to host a farewell reception in honour of Justice Aminuddin Khan, who will retire from the Supreme Court on November 30. However, Justice Aminuddin’s departure from the apex court will not mark the end of his judicial career. The government has appointed him as the first Chief Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court, a newly created body under the 27th Amendment — a position that effectively extends his judicial tenure by another three years.
While the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court is being celebrated by the government as part of its “judicial modernization” initiative, the move has sparked intense debate within the legal fraternity. Many view it as an attempt to curb the powers of the Supreme Court and to bring the judiciary under tighter executive control.
The sense of unease has been compounded by the resignations of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah, both of whom have chosen to step down rather than, in their words, “become part of a crippled and managed judiciary.” Their decision has sent shockwaves through judicial and political circles alike, reinforcing fears that Pakistan’s judiciary is being systematically undermined.
The 27th Amendment, passed amid heated debate and protests in Parliament, has already ignited one of the most divisive legal controversies in recent years. While government spokesmen have called it a step toward efficiency and transparency in the justice system, opposition parties and constitutional experts argue that several provisions are not only unconstitutional but also un-Islamic.
Among the most contentious clauses is the grant of lifetime immunity to the President, the Field Marshal, and the Service Chiefs, a move that many legal experts describe as a direct violation of the principle of equality before law — a central tenet of both Islamic jurisprudence and Pakistan’s constitutional framework.
“No law can override the injunctions of Islam as enshrined in the Constitution,” remarked a senior constitutional lawyer. “Granting lifetime immunity to any office-holder is against both the Constitution and the teachings of Islam. It’s an affront to the rule of law.”
Analysts say the immunity clause was inserted as a political compromise, reportedly to secure the support of President Asif Ali Zardari and other key stakeholders for the amendment’s passage.
The legal community expects that the controversial clauses of the 27th Amendment will soon be challenged in the superior courts, setting the stage for yet another constitutional showdown. Some even predict that the Federal Constitutional Court itself may end up adjudicating challenges to the very law that created it — a scenario that would test the limits of judicial ethics and constitutional logic.
Beyond the political implications, the creation of a parallel judicial structure has triggered serious concerns about the fragmentation of judicial authority. Under the amendment, the Federal Constitutional Court will handle all constitutional disputes — a mandate that overlaps significantly with the traditional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This overlap, lawyers warn, could create confusion, weaken the authority of the apex court, and deepen divisions within the judiciary.
“Parallel systems rarely work,” commented a senior advocate of the Supreme Court. “Instead of reforming the judiciary, the 27th Amendment risks politicizing it further. Once politics seeps into judicial appointments, impartial justice becomes impossible.”
Inside judicial circles, quiet conversations are reportedly taking place about the next phase of leadership transitions. Justice Aminuddin Khan’s elevation to head the new constitutional court is expected to trigger reshuffling at the top of Pakistan’s judicial hierarchy, possibly influencing future appointments and the balance of power within the judiciary.
For now, the nation’s attention remains focused on how these unprecedented developments unfold. Will the newly created Federal Constitutional Court enhance judicial efficiency and constitutional clarity, as claimed by the government? Or will it deepen divisions and compromise the independence of the judiciary, as critics fear?
One thing is clear: the 27th Amendment has opened a new and uncertain chapter in Pakistan’s constitutional history. Its defenders view it as a necessary evolution of the legal system; its opponents, as a dangerous political maneuver to control the courts.
As the country braces for what many predict will be a prolonged legal battle, the fate of the amendment — and indeed the future of judicial independence in Pakistan — now rests with the very institution it seeks to redefine: the judiciary itself.
