The resignation of Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza as a Lahore High Court (LHC) judge on Saturday – officially for “personal reasons” – has deepened an already widening fissure in the ever-troubled judicial landscape. Ranked fifth in seniority at the LHC and a member of its administration committee, Justice Mirza’s departure comes on the heels of two unprecedented resignations from the Supreme Court: those of senior puisne judge Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah. Justices Shah and Minallah stepped down after the passage of the 27th Amendment, calling the new amendment a grave assault on the constitution. In his resignation letter, Justice Shah described the constitutional tweak as one that “dismantles the SC, compromises judicial independence and weakens the country’s constitutional democracy”. He said he could not remain in a court “stripped of its constitutional authority”. This was clearly a reference to the amended Article 189, which now states that any Supreme Court decision is not binding on the newly constituted Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).
Unfortunately, instead of introspection, the government’s reaction has been defensive and dismissive. Several federal ministers and senior PML-N leaders labelled the judges’ resignations ‘political speeches’ and even termed their statements ‘unconstitutional’. Legal observers have rightly pushed back: why, they ask, can judges not comment on political implications when the Supreme Court itself routinely hears political cases, when questions of constitutional interpretation inherently intersect with politics, and when the constitution itself is a political document? Judges are allowed to defend the constitutional order. Observers also note that, while the government may claim innocence, these resignations ought to prompt serious reflection on what has been done to the judiciary. Pakistan’s judicial history is undeniably chequered, but every judiciary needs independent voices – judges who truly believe in civil liberties. In recent years, both Justice Shah and Justice Minallah have authored liberal, progressive judgments relating to human rights, women’s rights, minorities’ rights and the environment. Their absence will be felt far beyond the courtroom.
What is perhaps most troubling is how little these resignations have dented the broader political system. The silence following their departure speaks volumes. When such voices disappear from institutional spaces, it is not only the judiciary that gets weakened but the entire democratic foundation of the country also gets shaken as well. If judges do not raise their voices on matters of constitutional and institutional significance, these issues will soon slip out of our national discourse altogether. That loss will belong not just to the judiciary, but to every Pakistani. For now, the PML-N government may view itself as the beneficiary of the 27th Amendment. But when independent judges and liberal voices that once strengthened constitutionalism are missing, the consequences will eventually reach every political actor – including those currently in power. Laws that weaken the democratic system do not remain quiet forever. Their reverberations will soon be heard – and when they are, today’s beneficiaries may well find themselves tomorrow’s casualties. Yet even in this moment of institutional strain, there remain avenues for course correction. Pakistan’s judiciary has, time and again, shown a capacity for internal renewal and there are still many judges who continue to uphold constitutionalism with integrity and restraint. Civil society, the bar and segments of the political class have also begun to articulate sharper concerns about the long-term implications of the 27th Amendment, signalling that the debate is far from settled. If this moment becomes a catalyst for a broader, more honest dialogue on judicial reform, separation of powers and the constitutional role of courts, then these resignations – however unsettling – could ultimately push the system towards a stronger, more accountable equilibrium.
