President Asif Ali Zardari on Thursday gave assent to the contentious 27th Amendment after approval from parliament. With the president’s signature, the amendment has now officially become part of the constitution. On paper, the 27th Amendment claims to ‘streamline’ governance by carving out constitutional adjudication for a new court, reviving executive magistrates and reshaping even aspects of military command. But in practice, the amendment has plunged the judiciary into its most serious crisis in years. Clause 23, which amends Article 176, has proven especially contentious, specifying that “notwithstanding anything contained in the constitution, the incumbent chief justice shall continue to be known as the chief justice of Pakistan during his term in office.” This clause is being criticised not only for entrenching titles but for symbolising the judiciary’s failure to defend its own institutional independence. That criticism acquired unprecedented force on Thursday, when senior puisne judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah tendered their resignations within hours of the amendment becoming law. Their resignation letters, scathing, mournful and damning, lay bare what many legal experts have been warning for months: the amendment effectively dethrones the Supreme Court as the apex guardian of constitutional rights. Both judges say that they had written to Chief Justice Afridi asking him to convene a full court meeting or judicial conference to debate the proposed amendment. While some legal experts argue that CJP Afridi is constrained – that parliament holds the right to amend the constitution through a two-thirds majority and courts cannot strike down such amendments merely because judges disapprove – this argument rings hollow in the face of the resignations. Constitutional interpretation has never been a passive or purely procedural function. The judiciary’s silence in moments of constitutional upheaval is itself a choice – one that shapes the nation’s trajectory.
So, what happens now? In the coming days, the president is expected to administer the oath to the first-ever chief justice of the Federal Constitutional Court – a move that will operationalise the new structure and, effectively, downgrade the Supreme Court to a largely appellate body. The FCC will take over constitutional matters, placing unprecedented authority in a court whose design, appointments process and relationship with the executive remain deeply controversial. Whether this restructuring stabilises governance or weakens constitutional protections will become clear only over time. But for now, the consensus among legal scholars, political observers and segments of the bar is striking: the 27th Amendment fundamentally shifts the balance of power in favour of the executive, at the cost of judicial independence. Some in the opposition have called for a new lawyers’ movement. Yet there is widespread scepticism about whether such a movement could gain the moral clarity, public momentum or cross-party unity needed to challenge what is already being described as a system consolidating itself through constitutional engineering. That, perhaps, is the most sobering reality emerging from this week’s events. Two of the country’s most respected judges have resigned not over disagreement, but over the belief that the constitution itself – its spirit, its architecture, its guarantees – has been hollowed out. Whither justice?
