State Minister for Law Aqeel Malik stated on Thursday that the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) — not the Supreme Court — is the competent forum for all constitutional matters following the 27th Amendment.
Speaking on Geo News’ programme Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Saath, he said judges who attempted to file a petition in the Supreme Court had approached the wrong forum. Malik emphasised that both the Supreme Court and the FCC have framed their own rules, and the amendment clearly assigns constitutional jurisdiction to the newly created court.
He questioned why the judges submitted their plea to the Supreme Court when, under the revised structure, only the FCC is authorised to hear such matters.
Malik rejected claims that the amendment compromises judicial independence, arguing that the authority to transfer judges—previously vested in the president—now lies with the Judicial Commission. He reiterated that resignations are a personal choice for judges and said misleading narratives were being spread regarding recent departures from the judiciary.
Meanwhile, sources reported that four Islamabad High Court judges — Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz, and Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan — intend to challenge the 27th Amendment in the Supreme Court. A draft petition has been prepared, though neither the Supreme Court nor the FCC has received any formal filing.
Passed earlier this month by the PML-N-led coalition, the 27th Amendment introduced sweeping reforms to the judicial structure and military command. The FCC, created with equal provincial representation, has been empowered to take suo motu notice and now handles constitutional cases previously heard by the Supreme Court.
Additional changes include dissolving Constitutional Benches and transferring bench-formation authority to a three-member committee headed by the chief justice.
Since the amendment’s passage, Supreme Court Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah, followed by LHC Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza, have resigned in protest, calling the amendment a grave assault on the Constitution — a characterisation the government strongly rejects.
