By Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD: As the Senate passed the 27th Constitutional Amendment on Monday, a group of present and former judges and prominent lawyers urged Chief Justice Yahya Afridi to convene a full court meeting to address what they described as the most profound threat to the Supreme Court since its founding.
The call came in a letter dated Nov. 9, drafted by senior counsel Faisal Siddiqi and signed by retired Supreme Court senior puisne judge Justice Mushir Alam, retired Sindh High Court judge Justice Nadeem Akhtar and nine other leading lawyers. The letter warned that the country was facing “not in normal times but in times that presented the greatest threat to the Supreme Court of Pakistan since its establishment in 1956.”
It characterised the 27th Amendment Act as the “biggest and the most radical restructuring of the Federal Appellate Court structure since the enactment of the Government of India Act, 1935.” “We say this without any fear of contradiction that no civilian or military government in Pakistan’s history has even tried, let alone succeeded, in relegating the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a subordinate court and permanently denude it of its constitutional jurisdiction, as is being done through the proposed Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025,” the signatories wrote. “If your Lordship is in agreement with us that this proposed amendment act is the biggest and most radical restructuring of the Supreme Court of Pakistan since its inception, then we would most respectfully request, and fully expect your Lordship, to call a full court meeting to discuss this proposed Amendment Act and to give an appropriate response to the federal government in the form of inputs and suggestions regarding this proposed amendment act.”
The legal experts emphasised that the Supreme Court “has every right and power to give its input to the federal government on any proposed amendment act,” noting that the legislation proposes “radical restructuring” of the court’s basic essence, structure and its constitutional obligation to administer justice for all. Reiterating the urgency, the letter pointed out that the amendment was expected to be passed by Nov. 11 “or any day thereafter.” The signatories says “in case this request was declined on the pretext of neutrality or noninterference with legislation (which we consider to be reasons without any substance), then we would at least expect you to accept and admit in a written response to us that you are now reconciled to be the last chief justice of Pakistan and now reconciled to accept the demise of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as the highest court in Pakistan.”
They added: “At least by this admission by you, we would no longer have any kind of expectation from your Lordship to be a defender of the Supreme Court.” The letter requested that a copy be released to the media, given its status as a matter of “utmost public importance.” In addition to Siddiqi and the retired judges Alam and Akhtar, the endorsers included former attorneys general for Pakistan Muneer A. Malik and Anwar Mansoor Khan; former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association Abid Shahid Zuberi, Ali Ahmad Kurd, Muhammad Akram Sheikh and Kanrani B. Amanullah; and Supreme Court advocates Khwaja Ahmad Hosain, Salahuddin Ahmed and Shabnam Nawaz Awan.
Zuberi, Sheikh and Ahmed are among the petitioners challenging the 26th Amendment, which drew significant opposition from the legal community when it passed in October 2024. Kurd and other lawyers had pledged to start a protest movement to reject that amendment and “restore the judiciary’s independence.” Malik and Hosain argued last month in the 26th Amendment case as counsels for the Balochistan High Court Bar Association and veteran politician Afrasiab Khattak, respectively.
In a separate development, Supreme Court Justice Mansoor Ali Shah wrote to Chief Justice Afridi on Nov. 8, urging him to hold an urgent institutional consultation on the 27th Amendment. Justice Shah called on the chief justice to engage with the executive and make clear that no amendment affecting the judiciary would proceed without consulting judges of the constitutional courts. He also asked Chief Justice Afridi to convene a full court meeting on the matter.
The 27th Amendment proposes sweeping changes to the judiciary, chief among them the establishment of a Federal Constitutional Court. The new court would handle constitutional matters, with its decisions binding on all courts, including the Supreme Court, leading many experts to conclude that it would effectively demote the Supreme Court from its position as the nation’s highest judicial body.
The amendment builds on the constitutional benches created under the 26th Amendment, which is still under challenge in the Supreme Court. Even as the 27th Amendment awaits final parliamentary approval, the government has moved forward with restructuring the superior judiciary, shortlisting seven judges for the Federal Constitutional Court.
Justice Aminuddin Khan, who currently heads the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench, is under consideration to become the chief justice of the new court. Also discussed are Supreme Court Justices Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Aamer Farooq and Ali Baqar Najafi, along with Justice K.K. Agha of the Sindh High Court and Chief Justice Rozi Khan Barrech of the Balochistan High Court.
Officials said the initial strength of the Federal Constitutional Court would be set by a presidential order, with any later increase requiring an act of Parliament. The amendment inserts Chapter 1A into the Constitution, creating the Federal Constitutional Court with its own chief justice serving a fixed three-year term and judges drawn from the Supreme Court, senior high court judges with at least seven years of experience, or advocates with more than two decades in practice. Judges of the new court would retire at 68, compared with the current retirement age of 65 for Supreme Court judges under Article 179.
The amendment allows the president to transfer a high court judge to another high court on the recommendation of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. Under the new Article 189, the Supreme Court would become the apex court solely for civil and criminal appeals, while Federal Constitutional Court decisions would bind all courts, including the Supreme Court. The new court would have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between the federation and provinces or among provinces, and could initiate cases on its own involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation. It would also assume the Supreme Court’s powers over enforcement of fundamental rights, appeals from high courts on constitutional matters, writ petitions under Article 199 (excluding family and rent cases), and the president’s authority to seek advisory opinions from the apex court.
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
