How Pakistan’s judiciary is being undermined

Source: The post “How Pakistan’s judiciary is being undermined” has been created, based on “How Pakistan’s judiciary is being undermined : Explained” published in “The Hindu” on 1st December 2025.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper-2- Polity and Constitution

Context: Pakistan’s Parliament has passed the 27th Constitutional Amendment, which has triggered a major debate about the future of judicial independence in the country. The amendment has created a new Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) and has reduced the Supreme Court’s traditional constitutional authority.

Has the Judiciary–Executive Conflict Occurred Earlier?

1. Pakistan has a long history of tension between the judiciary, the executive and the military Establishment.
2. Earlier courts used the “Doctrine of Necessity” to legitimise military coups by Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zia-ul-Haq.
3. The 1990s saw repeated confrontations, including judicial decisions supporting or striking down the dismissal of elected governments.
4. Nawaz Sharif’s attempt to remove the Chief Justice in 1996 even led to his supporters storming the Supreme Court.
5. The Panama Papers verdict of 2017 and the 2007 Lawyers’ Movement show the judiciary’s more assertive phases, which have increasingly worried both political and military actors.
6. Recent allegations of intimidation by intelligence agencies have intensified concerns about external interference in judicial functioning.

Why Has the 27th Amendment Created a New Federal Constitutional Court?

1. The 27th Amendment establishes the FCC to hear cases on constitutional interpretation, federal–provincial disputes and fundamental rights.
2. The creation of the FCC removes these matters from the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, thereby restricting its powers as the guardian of the Constitution.
3. The government argues that the FCC will reduce the burden on the Supreme Court, but critics believe it is meant to curb the Court’s involvement in politically sensitive issues.
4. The speed of FCC appointments suggests an attempt by the executive to shape constitutional adjudication through judges more aligned with its interests.

Does the Amendment Curtail the Role and Powers of Pakistan’s Supreme Court?

1. The Supreme Court can no longer hear cases relating to constitutional interpretation, which weakens its foundational role.
2. The amendment reduces the Supreme Court to an appellate court and sidelines it from matters that define the balance of power in the state.
3. The executive has been given the power to transfer judges without their consent, which threatens judicial autonomy and increases the risk of punitive or politically motivated transfers.
4. The judiciary has become internally divided as some judges have resigned in protest while others have accepted positions under the new system, further weakening institutional resistance.

What Did the 26th Amendment Mandate?

1. The 26th Amendment changed the composition of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan by increasing the presence of executive members, thereby reducing judicial dominance.
2. It also shifted the power of appointing constitutional benches from the Chief Justice of Pakistan to the JCP, diluting the internal autonomy of the Supreme Court.
3. The 26th Amendment laid the groundwork for greater political control over the higher judiciary, which the 27th Amendment has deepened.

Implications of the 27th Amendment

1. The amendment weakens the independence of the judiciary by curtailing the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisdiction.
2. It strengthens executive and military influence over judicial appointments, transfers and constitutional cases.
3. It re-politicises the system that the 18th Amendment (2010) had tried to depoliticise by strengthening the Judicial Commission.
4. A divided judiciary becomes less capable of protecting constitutional norms or resisting executive overreach.
5. The shift upsets the principle of separation of powers and endangers the checks and balances necessary for stable constitutional democracy.

Way Forward

1. Pakistan must restore the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction over constitutional and federal matters to preserve judicial independence.
2. Reforms in the Judicial Commission should reduce executive influence and re-establish judicial primacy in appointments.
3. Transparent procedures for judicial transfers and postings are necessary to prevent misuse of executive authority.
4. Greater unity among the judiciary, legal fraternity and civil society is essential to resist political interference.
5. Institutional dialogue, rather than confrontational politics, is needed to rebuild trust and uphold constitutional balance.

Conclusion: The 26th and 27th Amendments collectively mark a significant weakening of the higher judiciary in Pakistan. The creation of the FCC and the diminishing role of the Supreme Court undermine the separation of powers and give the executive and military Establishment greater control. A strong and independent judiciary remains crucial for safeguarding democracy, accountability and constitutional governance in Pakistan.

Question: The 26th and 27th Constitutional Amendments in Pakistan reflect a deeper attempt to restructure judicial power and tilt the balance of authority towards the executive. Examine the historical context, key provisions, implications, and the way forward.