The 27th Constitutional Amendment has sparked one of the most heated legal and political debates in Pakistan’s recent history. Unveiled in the Senate after days of secret negotiations, this proposed amendment seeks to bring sweeping alterations to the structure of Pakistan’s judiciary and defence command. While the government describes it as a forward-looking reform, critics see it as a deliberate move to undermine judicial independence and strengthen executive control.
What Is the 27th Amendment?
At its core, the 27th Amendment Bill proposes the creation of a new Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) — a powerful institution that, if established, could effectively play a role in dethroning of the Supreme Court as the country’s top judicial body.
The bill also includes controversial provisions regarding the transfer and retirement of high court judges, and an overhaul of military command structure through amendments to Article 243.
Among the most notable proposals are:
- Establishing a Federal Constitutional Court as the highest forum for constitutional matters.
- Increasing the retirement age of FCC judges to 68 (compared to 65 for Supreme Court judges).
- Allowing involuntary transfers of high court judges, who would be forced to retire if they refused reassignment.
- Abolishing the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and designating the Chief of Army Staff as the Chief of Defence Forces, with Field Marshals retaining their title and uniform for life.
The first Chief Justice of the FCC would be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, a clause that has raised eyebrows among legal experts for concentrating too much power in the executive branch.
The Political Context Behind the Amendment
To understand the motivations behind this move, one must consider the political environment of post-2024 Pakistan. The current parliament, which is tasked with passing the amendment, is widely viewed as one of the least representative since 2008.
Allegations of electoral manipulation during the 2024 general elections — raised by domestic observers like Pattan and hinted at by foreign missions such as the Commonwealth — have cast a long shadow over the government’s legitimacy.
In this backdrop, many analysts keep arguing that an independent judiciary poses an existential threat to a fragile political order built on disputed elections.
The government, critics say, has sought to bring the courts firmly under its influence — first through administrative measures and now through constitutional restructuring.
Subjugation of the Judiciary: From the 26th to the 27th Amendment
The 26th Amendment marked the beginning of what many describe as a systematic attempt to manipulate judicial appointments and decision-making. Since then, the appointment of Chief Justice Yahya Afridi — bypassing senior judges — and the controversial empowerment of Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan to head the constitutional bench, have been cited as examples of internal politicization.
Read more: Supreme Court rules married daughter eligible for deceased father’s govt job quota
Judges seen as independent or critical of the government reportedly faced transfers, marginalization, or exclusion from key benches. In contrast, those viewed as compliant received rewards and extensions, setting the stage for a judiciary increasingly divided within itself.
The 27th Amendment takes this strategy a step further. By creating a new court with longer tenures and greater executive involvement in appointments, it effectively ensures that judges considered “unfriendly” can be sidelined, while loyalists are rewarded with new positions in the FCC.
Legal Experts Sound the Alarm
Prominent lawyers and constitutional experts have voiced deep concern over the implications of the proposed amendment. A senior counsel, speaking anonymously, warned that the Supreme Court would be reduced to a “Supreme District Court”, with its powers confined to civil, criminal, and statutory appeals.
“Amendment to Article 175 is virtually the end of the judiciary as we knew it,” he said. “The Supreme Court has been amended out of the Constitution by making it irrelevant.”
Former Additional Attorney General Tariq Mehmood Khokhar described the essence of the 27th Amendment as twofold:
1. Establishing an FCC that empowers the executive while disempowering the Supreme Court.
2. Amending Article 243 to formalize the Chief of Defence Forces position and grant Field Marshals lifelong ranks.
Other legal observers pointed out that in the revised constitutional text, the Chief Justice of the FCC is listed before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, signaling a clear hierarchy shift. The longer retirement age — 68 for the FCC versus 65 for the Supreme Court — further underscores which institution the government intends to elevate.
Supporters Call It a Reform of the Future
Despite the backlash, not all voices are opposed. Senior counsel Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar called the proposed amendment a “major and long-awaited structural shift” in Pakistan’s justice system.
He argued that creating two separate apex courts — one handling appellate jurisdiction (Supreme Court) and the other focusing on constitutional interpretation (FCC) — would bring efficiency, clarity, and modernization to the judiciary.
According to him, this model is actually a copy of the systems in many developed democracies, where constitutional and appellate courts function independently without any interference. He believes the reform could help to
- Reduce case backlogs
- Eliminate internal divisions
- Depoliticize the higher judiciary
Read more: Is dividing Pakistan into 12 smaller provinces a cure or a complication?
The Battle Over Judicial Independence
However, opponents argue that the proposed “division of powers” is merely a façade. The deeper concern is executive control over judicial appointments and transfers — a mechanism that could be used to intimidate, reward, or remove judges based on their rulings.
If implemented, the Federal Constitutional Court would handle constitutional petitions, inter-governmental disputes, and appeals previously reserved for the Supreme Court. This effectively sidelines the current Supreme Court’s role as the final guardian of constitutional integrity — a role enshrined since Pakistan’s inception.
Many fear that this could erode the separation of powers, allowing the government to dominate institutions meant to hold it accountable.
Implications for Pakistan’s Democratic Future
The 27th Amendment represents more than just a legal reform — it symbolizes the struggle between democracy and executive dominance. If passed, it would mark the most significant shift in Pakistan’s judicial hierarchy since 1973, altering the balance between the judiciary, executive, and military.
While proponents keep on viewing it as a modernization effort, critics glance it as a constitutional coup in disguise — one that risks transforming Pakistan’s courts into instruments of political compliance.
The potential implications are vast:
• Erosion of judicial independence, with judges vulnerable to executive influence.
• Weakening of public trust in the justice system.
• Constitutional instability, as power structures are redrawn without consensus.
• Increased polarization within the judiciary itself.
The Bigger Picture: Reward and Control
At its heart, the 27th Amendment appears to be an instrument of reward and control — rewarding judges who actually display strong alignment with the government’s interests and controlling those who challenge it. By restructuring the judiciary and altering the chain of command in the armed forces, the amendment wants to give all authority to the executive, further blurring the line between state institutions.
Read more: Who is Justice Yahya Afridi? Complete Details About 30th Chief Justice of Pakistan
The Final Verdict: A Test of Conscience
Pakistan is now standing at a critical constitutional crossroads. Whether the amendment passes or not will depend on a parliament whose legitimacy remains contested, but history will judge those who choose silence in the face of institutional decay.
If any lawmakers with conscience remain, this is their moment to act — to defend not just a legal document, but the very spirit of Pakistan’s democracy.