KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Thursday issued notices to the ministry of law and justice and the ministry of parliamentary affairs on two identical petitions impugning the 27th Constitutional Amendment.
Two lawyers have petitioned the SHC and asserted that the amendment has violated the principle of separation of power, judicial independence and rule of law.
A two-judge constitutional bench of the SHC comprising Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry and Justice Muhammad Jaffer Raza also put a federal law officer on notice for Dec 18.
Citing the federation through the secretaries of ministry of law and justice and parliamentary affairs as respondents, petitioners Asif Waheed and Abdul Ahad Ahmar Khan contended that the creation of a parallel judicial structure and subordination of the Supreme Court will disrupt the continuity of constitutional interpretation and institutional evolution thereby violating the doctrine of basic structure.
They also argued that judicial independence was precondition for fairness and any structural compromise in impartiality of judiciary directly affects fairness of proceedings and adjudication. Judicial independence is also a fundamental principle of the rule of law ensuring that the judiciary can adjudicate cases impartially and without external interference, they argued.
The petitioners further maintained that an increased interference by the executive in appointment of judges of superior courts will pose a significant threat to the doctrine of judicial independence and such encroachment will also undermine separation of powers by allowing the executive to exert undue influence over the judiciary.
They maintained that after the enactment of the impugned amendment, a greater interference was allowed by the legislature/executive over the appointment of judges of the Federal Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that a provision about forced retirement of a judge of higher judiciary has also been introduced and if a judge declined to become the chief justice he/she stood retired and treating a judge’s principled refusal as retirement constituted a form of constructive removal again offending the doctrine of judicial independence as entrenched in the Constitution.
They also contended that the transfer of jurisdiction threatened to destabilise decades of constitutional jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court and transfer of high court judges has also been entrusted in the hands of the executive-dominated Judicial Commission of Pakistan.
The counsel further asserted that the lifetime immunity was also granted from arrest and all criminal as well as civil proceedings to the President while the parliament’s power to amend the constitution was wide but not absolute and permanent immunity clause has infringed Article 4, Article 25 and Article 10A of the Constitution.
They argued that the judiciary has played a fundamental role to check executive overreach, protection against corruption and uphold the core human rights and the impugned amendment has threatened the independence of judiciary.
The petitioners asked the court to strike down the amendment for being unconstitutional, against the basic structure/salient features of the Constitution and contrary to the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers.
After a preliminary hearing, the bench issued notice to the respondent as well as a federal law officer on both petitions with direction to file comments till next hearing.
Published in Dawn, November 21st, 2025
