A group of Pakistan’s most prominent senior lawyers and retired judges has written a formal letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Yahya Afridi, urging him to convene a Full Court meeting to deliberate on the proposed 27th Constitutional Amendment. The move comes amid rising concerns among legal circles that the amendment could significantly alter the balance of powers and potentially undermine the independence of the judiciary.
According to Geo News, the letter was drafted by senior lawyer Faisal Siddiqi and carries the signatures of well-known legal and judicial figures including former Supreme Court judges Justice (Retd.) Mushir Alam and Justice (Retd.) Nadeem Akhtar, along with senior advocates Makhdoom Ali Khan, Munir A. Malik, Abid Zuberi, Akram Sheikh, Anwar Mansoor Khan, Ali Ahmad Kurd, Khawaja Ahmad Hussain, and Salahuddin Ahmed. Their collective intervention underscores the seriousness of the concerns developing within the legal fraternity.
In the letter, the signatories emphasized that the Supreme Court, as an integral constitutional institution, holds the authority to express its position on constitutional amendments that could affect judicial structure and functioning. They stated that the current situation requires institutional clarity, consultation, and collective wisdom rather than silence or individual reactions.
The letter highlights that the Supreme Court is facing “the greatest challenge since its establishment.” The lawyers and retired judges noted that if the Chief Justice and other judges believe that the proposed amendment poses a fundamental threat to judicial independence, then it is not only within their power but also their responsibility to take institutional notice and respond appropriately.
The signatories stressed that the request for a Full Court meeting is being made under extraordinary circumstances. They maintained that the judiciary must collectively examine the nature, scope, and consequences of the proposed amendment to ensure that constitutional principles and the doctrine of separation of powers are not violated.
Background on the 27th Constitutional Amendment
The proposed 27th Amendment reportedly introduces changes to the method of judicial appointments and the composition of judicial oversight structures. Critics argue that it may allow the executive branch to exercise increased influence over judges, judicial bodies, and the internal functioning of courts.
Legal analysts note that similar constitutional amendments in the past have triggered prolonged institutional crises and have required careful review and deliberation between all branches of the state.
The core concern raised by many lawyers and retired judges is that any move that appears to weaken judicial independence could undermine public trust in the justice system and disrupt the constitutional balance between Parliament, the Executive, and the Judiciary.
Appeal to Institutional Unity
In their letter, the signatories urged the Chief Justice to take immediate steps to unite the judiciary on this issue. They argued that silence or passive reaction at such a critical time could be perceived as institutional abdication of responsibility.
They emphasized that the Supreme Court has historically played a crucial role during constitutional crises. A Full Court meeting, they argued, would allow all judges to openly discuss their views, assess the situation collectively, and determine a consensual path forward.
The letter also acknowledged that the amendment process, being legislative in nature, falls under the domain of Parliament. However, the signatories insist that the judiciary has the constitutional power to express concern, provide feedback, or clarify the legal implications of any amendment that directly affects the structure and independence of the judiciary.
Wider Reaction
The letter represents growing unease across Pakistan’s legal community. Bar associations in several cities have already begun holding consultations and discussions about the possible implications of the proposed amendment. A number of senior lawyers have also publicly warned that any step perceived as curtailing judicial autonomy may lead to widespread protests, strikes, and legal challenges.
