November 14, 2025
By Rehan Piracha
LAHORE
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has issued a scathing condemnation of Pakistan’s 27th Constitutional Amendment, describing it as “a flagrant attack on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law” following its passage by Pakistan’s Parliament.
The amendment, which comes barely a year after the controversial 26th Amendment was enacted in October 2024, introduces sweeping changes to Pakistan’s judicial architecture that have alarmed legal experts and human rights advocates internationally. According to the ICJ, the two amendments together “fundamentally alter the structure of the judiciary and undermine the judicial function in various ways.”
“The changes made to the judicial system in the 27th amendment are alarming,” said Santiago Canton, ICJ’s Secretary-General in statement on November 13. “They will significantly impair the judiciary’s ability to hold the executive accountable and protect the fundamental human rights of the people of Pakistan.”
The international jurists were concerned about the establishment of a Federal Constitutional Court, appointments of the court’s first chief justice and first batch of judges, the composition of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, transfer of judges of high courts, and lifetime immunities to public officials, introduced by the 27th amendment.
Federal Constitutional Court raises concerns
At the heart of the 27th Amendment lies the creation of a new Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), which the ICJ identifies as “the most fundamental change” introduced by the legislation. This new court will assume many powers previously exercised by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, fundamentally reshaping the country’s highest judicial tier.
The most fundamental change brought by the 27th amendment is the establishment of new Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) with sweeping powers to exercise many of the functions previously in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. “The FCC will have exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes between any of Pakistan’s governments (provincial and federal) and to adjudicate matters of public interest involving the enforcement of ‘fundamental rights’,” the ICJ said.
The FCC will also have the power to call for the record of any case that may involve a substantial question of law related to the interpretation of the Constitution of Pakistan, and make orders in the case. The FCC will also hear appeals as provided by any act of parliament, as well as appeals from the High Courts involving a substantial question of law related to the interpretation of the Constitution of Pakistan. Any cases or petitions pending before any other court that fall under the FCC’s jurisdiction stand transferred to the FCC. The FCC’s judgments, in so far as they decide a question of law, will be binding on all courts, including the Supreme Court.
Before the amendment, the Supreme Court of Pakistan exercised the functions that have now been given to the FCC. “Following the amendment, the Supreme Court will now effectively be an appellate court only in matters that do not involve interpretation of the Constitution of Pakistan,” the ICJ noted.
Controversial appointment mechanisms
The ICJ has expressed particular alarm over the procedures established for appointing judges to the new Federal Constitutional Court, especially the first batch of judicial officers who will staff the institution.
The 27th amendment provides that the President on the advice of the Prime Minister shall appoint the Chief Justice of the FCC from serving Supreme Court judges. While the precise number of judges on the FCC is to be fixed later by parliament, the amendment provides that the first “batch” of judges to the FCC shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister in consultation with the CJ of the FCC. Until Parliament determines the number of judges for the FCC, the President may fix the number of judges.
After the first CJ of the FCC and the first “batch” of judges are appointed, the appointments of FCC judges shall be made on the recommendation of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) and the appointment of the Chief Justice of the FCC shall be made by a Special Parliamentary Committee.
“The amendment does not provide any criteria on which the appointments will be made and does not require reasons to given for the appointments, apart from general qualifications necessary to be considered a judge of the FCC,” the ICJ said.
The ICJ emphasised that international standards provide the appointing body should be separate from and not under the direct control of the executive, a requirement that is clearly not met in the appointment of the CJ of the FCC and the first batch of judges of the FCC. “Under international standards, there must also be clear procedures and objective criteria for the appointment of judges.”
The appointments are also of concern as the CJ of the FCC and the senior most judge of the FCC will also be members of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan – the body responsible for judicial appointments – and the Supreme Judicial Council – the body responsible for judicial accountability, an arrangement inconsistent with the principle of judicial independence, the ICJ noted.
Political control over Chief Justice selection
The 27th Amendment continues a troubling trend initiated by the 26th Amendment regarding the selection of Pakistan’s chief justices. The ICJ explains that prior to the 26th Amendment, “the most senior judge of the Supreme Court was appointed the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The Executive or the Parliament appropriately had no say in this appointment.”
“The 26th Constitutional amendment amended the Constitution to give this authority to a political body, namely a “Special Parliamentary Committee” (SPC), consisting of eight members of the National Assembly and four members of the Senate,” the ICJ said. The SPC was empowered to nominate the Chief Justice of Pakistan from among the three most senior Supreme Court judges. The 27th amendment prescribes the same method for the appointment of the Chief Justice of the FCC after the first CJ of the FCC retires.
“The provision gives no grounds or criteria on the basis of which the SPC is to nominate the CJ of the SC or the CJ of the FCC, while also providing that its meetings shall be held in camera,” the ICJ noted.
Restructured Judicial Commission allows political influence
The composition of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), responsible for nominating judges, has been repeatedly altered to increase political influence. The 27th Amendment further modifies the JCP’s judicial membership while maintaining its political components.
The ICJ notes that “the JCP’s composition remains a concern, especially as at least two of the judicial members – the CJ of the FCC and a judge of the FCC – will initially be executive appointments.” More alarmingly, “the JCP’s composition allows for direct political influence over it, as the JCP’s judicial members are a minority,” with only “five out of 13 JCP’s members” required to be judges for Supreme Court and FCC appointments.
Controversial judge transfer provisions
The amendment introduces troubling provisions regarding the transfer of High Court judges. The ICJ explains that the JCP now has “the power to recommend to the President the transfer of a judge from one High Court to another and determine the terms and conditions for such a transfer.”
Crucially, “the requirement of consent has been removed” from the previous system. Judges who refuse transfer within 30 days “shall be subject to disciplinary proceedings” by the Supreme Judicial Council, and “until the SJC makes a decision on whether the judge’s refusal is misconduct or not, the judge is barred from performing judicial functions.”
The ICJ emphasises that the amended “Article 200 fails to provide for any basis on which the JCP will decide when judges should be transferred and there is no requirement to establish a mechanism with clearly defined criteria and objectives.” This creates “an arbitrary system” that “makes it impossible to determine whether transfer might actually be intended to be punitive or retaliatory, rather than for the legitimate purpose of better administration of justice and public interest.”
The organization questions whether refusing transfer constitutes the “serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence” required under international standards for judicial removal.
Sweeping immunity provisions
The 27th Amendment extends extraordinary legal protections to certain officials. The President of Pakistan now receives “lifetime immunity from criminal proceedings and arrest, as well as protections against civil proceedings,” though this immunity will not apply “for the duration the President holds a public office after they cease to be the President.”
Additionally, “lifelong immunity from criminal proceedings and arrest, as well as protections against civil proceedings” has been granted to holders of “honorary ranks of the Field Marshal, Admiral of the Fleet, and Marshal of the Air Force,” which currently includes the Chief of the Armed Forces.
The ICJ condemns these provisions as “contrary to core rule of law principles including accountability, access to justice, and equality before the law,” stating categorically that “no public official should ever be entirely unaccountable, as this effectively allows for the possibility of unlawful or arbitrary exercise of power without consequence.”
The 27th Amendment must be understood in the context of the 26th Amendment passed just one year earlier. That earlier legislation had already begun the process of politicizing judicial appointments by introducing the Special Parliamentary Committee system for selecting the Chief Justice and altering the Judicial Commission’s composition to include parliamentary members, thereby ending the judicial majority that previously existed.
Together, these amendments represent what the ICJ characterises as “the ongoing dismantling of the rule of law” in Pakistan. The organization “raises serious concern about the grave consequences” of these changes and “the resulting violations of human rights in Pakistan.”
The ICJ has called “upon all responsible executive and judicial officials to only give effect to the amendments in a manner that is compliant with the rule of law,” though how such compliance might be achieved given the amendments’ fundamental restructuring of judicial independence remains unclear.