The passage of Pakistan’s 27th Constitutional Amendment has drawn strong criticism from a leading international jurists’ organisation. The group described the amendment as a direct threat to judicial independence and the country’s constitutional balance. Although Pakistan has seen constitutional changes before, this new amendment has intensified debate about the future of judicial authority and accountability.
The organisation stated that the amendment undermines the judiciary’s ability to maintain constitutional oversight. Furthermore, it warned that the changes could weaken protections that safeguard fundamental rights. The reaction comes only a year after similar concerns were raised regarding the 26th Amendment. Therefore, the latest development has deepened existing anxieties within legal circles.
Jurists Highlight Serious Concerns Over Judicial Powers
According to the jurists’ body, the 27th Amendment introduces several structural changes that alter the judicial landscape. Most concerns revolve around the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court, the process of appointing judges, changes within the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, and new rules governing high court judges’ transfers.
The group stressed that these changes collectively limit the judiciary’s constitutional authority. Moreover, it emphasized that the amendments affect the delicate separation of powers, which is essential for a functioning constitutional system.
Federal Constitutional Court Gains Exclusive Constitutional Authority
One of the most significant elements is the establishment of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). Under the new amendment, the FCC receives exclusive authority to decide disputes between federal and provincial governments. It also gains jurisdiction over cases involving enforcement of fundamental rights, which were previously handled by the Supreme Court.
The FCC can obtain case records from any court. It may also hear appeals that involve constitutional interpretation. Before this amendment, the Supreme Court dealt with such matters. Now, however, the Supreme Court will act mainly as an appellate forum in cases that do not involve constitutional interpretation. This shift, according to the jurists’ group, reduces the Supreme Court’s role in shaping constitutional law.
FCC Appointments Raise Fears of Executive Influence
Another major issue involves the appointment process for FCC judges. The first batch will be appointed by the president based on the prime minister’s advice. Future appointments will come from the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. The chief justice of the FCC will be appointed by a special parliamentary committee.
Although the amendment defines basic judicial qualifications, it provides no further criteria for these appointments. Furthermore, it does not require any justification for the selection or rejection of candidates. The jurists’ body warned that this lack of transparency may allow political influence to overshadow judicial merit.
The organisation also expressed concern because the chief justice of the FCC and its senior-most judge will hold positions in both the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and the Supreme Judicial Council. Therefore, their influence could extend beyond the FCC itself.
New Rules on Judge Transfers Considered Arbitrary
The amendment also affects Article 200, which governs the transfer of high court judges. Under the new rules, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan can recommend a transfer. The president can then implement it. Judges must accept the transfer within 30 days. Otherwise, they lose their judicial duties.
However, the amendment does not clarify when a transfer should occur or what conditions justify such a recommendation. The jurists’ body warned that this uncertainty may create an environment where judges fear punitive or retaliatory transfers. As a result, judicial independence could weaken, despite the constitutional aim of administrative efficiency.
Lifetime Immunity for Key Officials Draws Strong Objections
The amendment also grants lifetime immunity to the president, the field marshal, the marshal of the air force, and the admiral of the fleet. These protections fall under Articles 243 and 248.
The jurists’ organisation stated that such immunity violates core principles of the rule of law. It emphasized that public officials should not be shielded entirely from accountability. Absolute immunity may allow unlawful actions to escape scrutiny. Therefore, the group stressed that these provisions weaken access to justice and undermine equality before the law.
Jurists Warn of Eroding Checks and Balances
According to the organisation, the combination of a powerful new court, unclear appointment rules, transfer uncertainties, and immunity provisions erodes the traditional system of checks and balances. Additionally, these changes may obstruct the judiciary’s ability to hold the executive accountable.
The group highlighted that a strong judiciary is essential for protecting human rights. It further noted that any structure that restricts judicial independence also restricts the public’s access to constitutional safeguards. Therefore, the amendment poses a long-term risk to governance and rule of law.
Senate Passes the Amendment Amid Protests
The amendment passed after intense debate. The Senate approved the bill with a two-thirds majority. Sixty-four members voted in favour, while four opposed it. The voting process included clause-by-clause approval followed by division. During voting, protests and slogans echoed through the chamber, and the chair directed members to maintain order.
Earlier, the Senate had already passed the bill. The National Assembly later introduced amendments. Consequently, the Senate had to reconsider and then approve the updated version. After this approval, the president signed the amendment into law the same day.
A Constitutional Turning Point With Far-Reaching Effects
The 27th Amendment marks a significant shift in Pakistan’s constitutional framework. The creation of the FCC, the new judicial appointment process, the expanded role of parliamentary committees, and changes in judicial transfers all signal a transformed legal system.
Legal experts and human rights advocates now closely observe how these changes will influence future cases and judicial oversight. Although supporters may argue that the amendment modernizes the system, critics fear it compromises judicial autonomy.
Nonetheless, the amendment’s impact will unfold gradually as courts, lawyers, and lawmakers navigate the new constitutional order.
