November 10, 2025
By Aitzaz Ibrahim
LAHORE
The proposed 27th Constitutional Amendment has ignited a heated debate across Pakistan, with government officials advocating it as a measure to ensure balance and transparency within state institutions, while legal experts and opposition voices have raised serious concerns over its implications for the country’s constitutional framework.
According to government officials, the amendment is designed to strengthen judicial reforms, institutional coordination, and parliamentary supremacy. However, critics argue that if enacted, the amendment could undermine several fundamental principles of the Constitution.
Legal Experts Voice Concerns
Supreme Court advocate Azhar Siddique warned that the amendment could drastically alter Pakistan’s Constitution.
“This amendment is being introduced to favor a few individuals and personalities. For the first time in history, there will be a constitutional court above even the Supreme Court,” he said.
Similarly, High Court advocate Abdullah Malik stated that the amendment’s primary objective appears to be controlling the judiciary and the Election Commission while consolidating power in the hands of a single individual.
“Previously, the court had the authority to take suo motu notices in cases of widespread human rights violations. This amendment removes Article 184 from the Constitution, depriving the judiciary of that power,” he explained.
Advocate Maqsood Saleem also described the amendment as contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. “Granting the President the authority to transfer judges of the High Court and Supreme Court is unconstitutional. Whenever this amendment faces independent judges, it is likely to be struck down,” he added.
It is noteworthy that according to the draft of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, the President will have the authority to transfer a High Court judge to another High Court on the recommendation of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan.
An important aspect of the proposed amendment is that if a High Court judge refuses the transfer, their matter will be reffered to the Supreme Judicial Council
It has also been proposed that if a High Court judge declines an appointment to the Supreme Court from the Federal Constitutional Court, they too will be deemed retired.
The proposed amendment includes several key provisions that have become the focal points of discussion:
Establishment of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC): The amendment proposes the creation of a new “Federal Constitutional Court” (FCC), which would hear cases related to constitutional matters and fundamental rights. Decisions of the FCC would be binding on the Supreme Court and all other courts.
Military Leadership and Positions: Changes to Article 243 of the Constitution have been proposed to create a new position of “Chief of Defence Forces” (CDF), replacing the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC). The Army Chief would be appointed to the CDF role, granting them broader constitutionally protected powers. Officers with five-star ranks, such as Field Marshals, would receive lifelong constitutional protections and privileges.
Transfer of High Court Judges: The amendment suggests changes to the process of transferring High Court judges, allowing transfers to occur based on the recommendations of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) without the consent of the judges. Judges who refuse such transfers could be deemed retired.
Removal of Supreme Court’s Suo Motu Powers
According to the draft of the constitutional amendment, Article 184, which defines the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and suo motu powers, is being proposed for removal.
Under Article 184(3), the Supreme Court previously had the authority to take suo motu notice of issues of public importance. Additionally, Article 186 allowed the Federal Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court to transfer any case to itself in accordance with the requirements of justice.