FOLLOWING the passage of the 26th and 27th Amendments, in 2024 and 2025 respectively, jurists and members of the legal community across Pakistan have extensively debated how these changes have altered the constitutional structure of the nation. In particular, significant questions have been raised about the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court, as a judicial body above the Supreme Court, as well as the new powers governing the transfer of high court judges. In fact, just yesterday, three judges of the Islamabad High Court were transferred to different provincial high courts by a majority decision of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. As many of the country’s top legal minds observed at a convention held in Karachi recently, the latest amendments have “ended” the concept of constitutional supremacy. The state must listen to this criticism instead of brushing it aside, and address the genuine complaints of constitutional experts.

The creation of the FCC has been seen by many as the establishment of a parallel judicial body to strip the Supreme Court of its constitutional jurisdiction, and leave it only as a court of appeals. Meanwhile, the criticism of the transfer of high court judges has been even sharper, with no less than the Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi opposing the move. As the chief justice had noted some days ago, transferring the IHC judges “could assume a punitive character” and would set a “dangerous precedent”. These are no ordinary concerns, especially as they come from the nation’s top judge. Speakers at the lawyers’ convention had expressed similar fears, saying that the judges were being transferred for exposing “intervention” in the judicial system. In light of these facts, it is essential that the judiciary as well as the executive move to remove these misgivings. The best way to go about it would be to maintain transparency regarding the attempts to restructure the judiciary. As one speaker at the convention pointed out, the hearing of petitions against the 26th and 27th Amendments should be telecast live. The state must remember that if changes that alter the spirit of the Constitution are bulldozed, and the independence of the judiciary is compromised, it will be very difficult to reverse these moves. That is why objections against these changes must be given a fair hearing.

Published in Dawn, April 29th, 2026