A significant development has emerged in Pakistan’s legal and political landscape after Supreme Court Justice Athar Minallah wrote a detailed letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, expressing deep reservations regarding the proposed 27th Constitutional Amendment and the broader role of the judiciary in Pakistan’s political history. The letter, dated November 8, has brought renewed attention to longstanding debates over judicial independence, accountability, and the perceived alignment of state institutions with powerful actors instead of the public.
In his letter, Justice Athar Minallah argues that the judiciary has often failed to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens and has instead sided with powerful elements such as ruling elites, military administrations, and political interests. According to him, this institutional tendency has resulted in the erosion of public trust, weakening democracy and deepening political instability. Justice Minallah’s critique spans historical judicial decisions, including the trial and execution of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, which he termed “an unforgivable judicial crime.”
Justice Minallah noted that the pattern is not confined to the past. He referenced later episodes involving prominent political leaders including Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, and Maryam Nawaz, stating that judicial decisions in these cases reflected political influence rather than impartial justice. He further pointed to the legal treatment of the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), arguing that the manner in which his cases were handled appears to be an extension of the same historical chain of political suppression.
One of the most critical themes in the letter is the issue of external interference. Justice Minallah stated that interference in judicial matters is not a speculative claim but a “known and open reality.” He wrote that judges who refuse to bow to such pressure often face retaliatory measures, including the misuse of accountability mechanisms. According to him, accountability—intended as a safeguard of transparency—has often been weaponized to punish upright judges who challenge the influence of powerful institutions.
Justice Minallah also highlighted the targeting of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), which, in recent years, delivered several judgments viewed as independent and rights-protective. He argued that when the IHC gained increasing public trust and credibility, attempts were made to undermine and discredit it. He described the backlash faced by outspoken judges as evidence of an entrenched culture where judicial independence is tolerated only when it aligns with the interests of the powerful.
He criticized the judiciary’s internal silence, saying that judges often acknowledge realities in private conversations—such as in informal gatherings and tea houses—but refrain from speaking publicly due to fear, institutional pressure, or cultural norms within the legal system. He contended that this silence has collectively weakened the judiciary’s moral authority and contributed to its ongoing legitimacy crisis.
The letter has renewed focus on the proposed 27th Constitutional Amendment, which is believed to contain provisions that may affect judicial structure and oversight. Justice Minallah expressed concern that the amendment could further concentrate power, enabling continued interference in the judicial process. His remarks suggest that without transparency and internal reform, such changes could further distance the judiciary from the public it is constitutionally bound to serve.
The broader implications of the letter extend beyond the judiciary. Justice Minallah’s message touches on Pakistan’s ongoing struggle between civil authority, judicial independence, and the influence of power centers that shape state policy. The historical record, he argues, shows repeated episodes where democratic governance and popular mandates were weakened through legal judgments that favored those already in power.
Legal experts and political observers have described the letter as one of the most candid and introspective criticisms to emerge from within the judiciary. They argue that its importance lies not only in its content but in its timing—at a moment when Pakistan continues to experience political uncertainty, institutional mistrust, and public debate about constitutional reforms.
Others observe that the letter could deepen divisions within the judiciary by exposing ideological differences among senior judges. However, it may also open space for dialogue about systemic reforms—something many legal scholars argue is long overdue. The discussion now extends to the core question: can Pakistan’s judiciary transform itself from a historically reactive institution into an independent guardian of constitutional rights?
Justice Minallah’s letter ultimately emphasizes that the legitimacy of the judiciary depends on its alignment with the public, not with power. He argues that the credibility and future of Pakistan’s legal system depend upon judges openly acknowledging past mistakes, resisting external pressure, and ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done without fear or favor.
