Pakistan’s Judiciary Faces Historic Challenges After 27th Amendment
By Dr Ikramul Haq
Pakistan
This is not an essay on the impact of the 27th Constitutional Amendment Bill on the judiciary. It is not even a comment. It is an obituary of the Supreme Court (SC) and the high courts that we once knew. If you have known a person or institution well and for long, such a piece is also not easy to write. Expression requires words. The bill has left us at a loss for words. Trying as it is, one must nevertheless soldier on— Supreme no more , Makhdoom Ali Khan, Dawn, 9 November 2025.
After the approval of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024 [26th Amendment], passed on 21 October 2024, Mr Justice Yahya Afridi was nominated on 22 October 2024 as Pakistan’s 30th Chief Justice. He bypassed two illustrious judges, Mr Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, who resigned in the wake of the Constitution (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Act, 2025 [27th Amendment], and Mr Justice Munib Akhtar, both senior to him.
The President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, notified Mr Justice Yahya Afridi on 23 October 2024 as Chief Justice of Pakistan, and he took oath of his office on 26 October 2024 for a term of three years. He will be the last Chief Justice of Pakistan till 22 October 2027 as per the 27th Amendment.
The main malady of the prevalent judicial system of Pakistan is the prolonged duration of legal proceedings, often spanning over decades before reaching finality. Will the Federal Constitution Court (FCC) of Pakistan, allotted the building of the Federal Shariat Court on 11 December 2025, after the failure of constitutional benches to solve this chronic issue, succeed?
The FCC, in the wake of the 27th Amendment, will hear all cases involving political issues or otherwise that require the interpretation of any provision of the Constitution. The FCC will also consider all leaves to appeals arising from the orders/judgments made in writs filed under Article 199 of the Constitution, barring cases which relate to “rent and family, except guardianship and such other matters as may be determined by law” [Article 175F(1)(c)].
https://www.thefridaytimes.com/24-Nov-2025/27th-amendment-pakistan-s-judiciary-faces-threat-independence-constitutional-order
Unfortunately, political polarisation in the aftermath of Panama’s case and selective accountability diluted the valiant common struggle waged by all segments of society, most notably lawyers, media, social and political activists, for the restoration of an independent judiciary.
What a tragedy that even after the dawn of the civilian era (sic) in 2009, people are crying for their fundamental rights at the fag end of 2025—tragically, this will continue in 2026 and beyond!
There now prevails a deadly disillusionment about “justice” promised by all the political parties in 2009. Everybody says that there is a need for implementing the rule of law and good governance, and strict enforcement of the 1973 Constitution, as these alone can put an end to the recurrent chaotic situation in the state.
However, open and blatant interference of the Executive in getting tax cases involving billions in their favour at various High Courts has exposed all claims for justice in the wake of the 26th Amendment. Establishing themselves as the recovery arm of the New East India Company, i.e., International Monetary Fund (IMF), the local gumashtas [vernacular term invented for agents of Company Bahadur], rulers of the day, are destroying whatever little faith citizens of the State had in the system!
The present-day Federal Constitution Court and Supreme Court are again faced with a historic challenge to prove that those who adjudge others have nothing to hide
Our history is marred by anti-people and autocratic rules, both military and civilian alike. Asghar Khan’s case revealed the sordid events—how the de facto rulers, mighty men in khaki, tried to ignore and distort the people’s mandate. This process continued and was reaffirmed with the events of April 2022 and developments thereafter. Not only the unabated interference in politics by men in khaki, but also the role of the judiciary in validating their coups d’état and extra-constitutional acts is equally deplorable in our history.
Like all other institutions, the judiciary in the post-independence period suffered due to weak democratic traditions, fights between economic vested interests, rivalry of influential politicians, and bitter power struggles between the landowner cliques and civil-military bureaucracy.
In Asghar Khan’s case, the Supreme Court identified faces responsible for undermining the political system but absolved the institution, saying these were their “individual acts”. It was admitted that huge funds were released by a bank for political purposes. Later, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) reported, “nothing was proved”! This case exposed the very fragility of a system where the rule of law had been and is still being flouted with impunity. The review petition of the main accused and order to the FIA to continue the investigation in April 2019 are no longer of interest to anyone, not even to the so-called vibrant (sic) media.
As “press and nation rise and fall together”, the same is true for the judiciary. Of course, no organ of the State works in isolation from socio-economic-political conditions, but it is also a fact that the present-day Federal Constitution Court and Supreme Court are again faced with a historic challenge to prove that those who adjudge others have nothing to hide.
There is a consensus that our justice system needs fundamental reforms, as it is not dispensing justice. What the problems are and how these can be fixed have been highlighted in several studies. The question is, who will undertake reforms? The beneficiaries of the rotten system will obviously resist any positive change. Since the rich and mighty secure “relief” through influence or money power, they would never be interested in reforms. It is an undeniable fact that our legal apparatus favours and protects the rich and mighty—Legal & Judicial Reforms in Pakistan (1947–2024), PIDE, 2025; Innovation in Justice Delivery, 8 March 2020; and Reforming Pakistan’s Criminal Justice System, Crisis Group, December 2010.
In all the courts, thousands of cases, the number of which increases with every passing day, are pending. The courts are working below the sanctioned strength and in an outdated fashion. Excessive and unnecessary litigation is symptomatic of various ills in society. Instead of removing the causes of litigation, only symptoms are being cured by increasing the number of judges, chambers and giving more room to lawyers to fleece the helpless citizens. The number of judges and courts, even if increased many hundred times, would not end the real malady—lack of socio-economic justice in society and good governance. These alone can stem the rising tide of litigation.
Since abuse of powers can only be checked through accountability by a proactive and impartial judiciary, dispensation of justice is a sine qua non for democracy
It needs no debate or deliberation that the judicial organ of the State has to act as custodian of the rights of the people under the Constitution and ensure the rule of law in society. The rule of law embraces at least three principles. The first principle is that the law is supreme over officials of the government as well as private individuals, and thereby precludes the influence of arbitrary and political power. The second principle requires the creation and maintenance of an actual order of positive laws that preserves and embodies the more general principle of normative order. The third principle requires that the law regulate the relationship between the State and the individual.
We must banish with full force any kind of interference in the judicial system and must give the judges every possible facility to perform their functions. However, the judiciary must perform its duties, and judges need to deliver what the law requires of them.
Administration and dispensation of justice in Pakistan has been a complete failure, and, therefore, democracy has never taken root. It is high time that civil society, media and intelligentsia raise a collective voice for complete judicial reforms, as it is vital for true and sustainable democracy and the establishment of the rule of law.
In a bona fide democratic set-up, the electoral process and rule of law ensure accountability of politicians and those who hold public office. If elections fail to bring the rule of law (as is the case in Pakistan), it amounts to a negation of democracy.
Favouritism, nepotism, despotism, repression, fascism, bigotry, totalitarianism, oppression, tyranny, denial of human rights, persecution of minorities and denial of access to justice, curbs on media freedom—all antonyms to democracy—have no room in a people’s rule. It is substance that matters and not mere form—elections per se cannot guarantee a democratic polity or rule of law. Since abuse of powers can only be checked through accountability by a proactive and impartial judiciary, dispensation of justice is a sine qua non for democracy.
Accountability must start from the highest adjudicators and claimants of defending ideological frontiers of the only Islamic country with nukes and missiles. They should come forward voluntarily and declare true incomes/assets/liabilities of self, spouses and dependents. Once the higher judiciary becomes transparent by truthful voluntary declarations, the mighty men in khaki and muftis will have to follow suit to prove by their actions, not by words, the supremacy of the Constitution.
It is time that all pro-people forces and masses en bloc resolve to establish a true democratic rule, an egalitarian society and accountability of all, not selective of politicians when in opposition or someone being defiant to those who claim to be so-called defenders of Nazaria-i-Pakistan (Pakistan ideology) and their cronies.
The self-acclaimed defenders (ab)use ideology and religion to deprive the people of their inalienable right of self-governance and prosperity. The process of accountability should be for all, not for politicians alone, and must be strictly as per law and across the board, fulfilling all requirements of Article 10A of the Constitution.
(Dr Ikramul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), member Advisory Board and Visiting Senior Fellow of Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE), holds LLD in tax laws. He was full-time journalist from 1979 to 1984 with Viewpoint and Dawn. He also served Civil Services of Pakistan from 1984 to 1996. The Friday Times)
