PESHAWAR: A local lawyer has challenged the 26th and 27th constitutional amendments in the Peshawar High Court, claiming that these changes were in direct conflict with the provisions guaranteeing separation of judiciary from the executive.

Advocate Hastam Khan filed a petition with the court requesting it to declare the two impugned amendments un-Islamic, un-constitutional and against the basic structure and salient features of the Constitution.

He also sought the formation of a full court for hearing the matter, saying it involves questions of public importance including independence of judiciary, interpretation of the constitution and fundamental rights of the public.

The petitioner also sought interim relief requesting the court to suspend the impugned amendments until the final disposal of the case.

The petition, filed through advocate Sulman Khan, includes as respondents the Federation through the federal law secretary, the country’s president through its principal secretary, the Senate through its chairman and the National Assembly.

The petitioner said that through the two controversial amendments, drastic changes were made to several constitutional provisions mostly related to the judiciary.

He claimed that the respondents had re-written the constitution instead of amending it and thereby, the respondents had destroyed the basic structure and salient features of the Constitution and had blatantly violated the trichotomy of power which was not the mandate of Articles 238 and 239 of the Constitution.

The petitioner contended that the impugned amendments were in direct conflict with the mandatory provisions of Article 175(3) of the Constitution, which provided for separation of judiciary from the executive within 14 years from the commencing day of the Constitution, but the said time had already been completed in 1987.

He said that Article 2-A of the Constitution declared that judiciary should be independent.

“Both these articles are still intact and are in direct contradiction to the impugned amendments,” he said.

The petitioner contended that granting exemption to certain persons from any liability was un-Islamic, unconstitutional and not acceptable to any prudent mind.

He said it was the utmost duty of the judges of the superior courts as per their oaths to protect and preserve the Constitution and fundamental rights of the people.

Published in Dawn, December 7th, 2025