SC moved against proposed 27th amendment, ‘curtailment of judiciary’s powers’

A petition has been filed with the Supreme Court challenging attempts to do away with the constitutional jurisdiction of superior judiciary by means of the proposed 27th amendment bill 2025.

Petitioner Ali Tahir submitted in the petition that as per a proposal reported in the media, the subject amendment aimed to establish separate constitutional courts and the curtailment or transfer of the existing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the high courts conferred under the articles 184(3) and 199 of the Constitution.

He said that such an attempt, if permitted to proceed, would fundamentally alter the constitutional framework, destroy the independence of judiciary, violate the doctrine of separation of powers, and extinguish the citizens’ right of access to justice and judicial review guaranteed by the Constitution.

The petitioner said the apparent objective behind this move was not reforms but to control the judiciary, and it appeared to insulate certain executive or political actors from judicial scrutiny, particularly in light of the controversies surrounding the general elections held on 8 February 2024.

He said that these actions, if allowed to proceed unchecked, would not only destroy the independence of the judiciary but also fundamentally alter the balance of power envisaged under the Constitution.

The petitioner said that he did not seek to challenge a specific enacted amendment at this stage but rather sought the Supreme Court’s urgent intervention to protect its own jurisdiction and that of the high courts from being curtailed or abrogated in violation of the constitution.

He submitted that once the Supreme Court’s and the high courts’ jurisdiction was removed or transferred, it would no longer be possible for them to review or strike down any unconstitutional amendment.

He submitted that recent events in Pakistan, notably the 26th constitutional amendment, had served as a clear illustration of the perils at hand. He said that the changing of the JCP composition to give a majority to politicians, the ability of non-judicial actors to select or exclude the CJP, and the conversion of judicial benches into political instruments had transformed the Supreme Court into a mere instrument of the current administration, and stripped it of any ability to resist or check unlawful administrative, executive or parliamentary aggression.

The apex court was requested to declare that any proposal, attempt or measure, whether by way of a bill, draft, discussion or otherwise, that sought to curtail, transfer, suspend or abolish the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan under the Article 184(3) or the high courts under the Article 199 of the Constitution, was unconstitutional, void and of no legal effect.

The petitioner also sought injunctions restraining all the organs of the state, including the Federation of Pakistan, the federal government and any parliamentary body or committee, from taking any step or initiating any process aimed at curtailing, transferring, suspending or otherwise affecting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the high courts whether through the proposed constitutional amendment bill or by any other means.