Noor Ul Huda is a JURIST staff correspondent in Pakistan and a recent graduate of Punjab University Law College. She files this dispatch from Lahore. 

A profound constitutional crisis is gripping Pakistan. Two of the country’s most respected Supreme Court justices, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah, have resigned in protest, declaring that the Constitution they swore to uphold has been rendered a mere “shadow” and that the Supreme Court “crippled.”

The resignations came after the passage of the controversial 27th Constitutional Amendment by the Parliament of Pakistan on November 13, which received President Asif Ali Zardari’s assent. The sweeping reform has placed the judiciary under the shadow of executive influence. Following the two Supreme Court judges, Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza from Lahore High Court and former Attorney General and senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Makhdoom Ali Khan, also resigned from the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan.

The resignations have meant emotional trauma for citizens and young lawyers, who have long admired these judges for their integrity and landmark rulings. The despair was compounded within hours by the news that President Asif Ali Zardari swore in Justice Aminuddin Khan as the first Chief Justice of the newly established Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) under Article 175B of the 27th Amendment.

The FCC has replaced the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP)—established in 1956—as Pakistan’s highest court. The new establishment has stripped the SCP of its original jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights and its appellate jurisdiction over substantial constitutional matters. These powers are now vested exclusively in the FCC. Any FCC decision will be binding on the Supreme Court, but not vice versa which has led to another pertinent question about the status of the precedents set by the Supreme Court concerning constitutional matters.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said in his resignation:

Since independence, Pakistan has lived under a single apex court—from the Federal Court of 1948 to the Supreme Court established by the 1956 Constitution—rooted in the common-law tradition and entrusted as the final guardian of the Constitution. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment ruptures that settled design. It divides the Supreme Court of Pakistan and creates a new Federal Constitutional Court above it—an arrangement entirely alien to the common-law world.

Expressing a similar sentiment in his resignation, Justice Athar Minallah wrote:

The Constitution that I swore an oath to uphold and defend is no more. Much as I have tried to convince myself otherwise, I can think of no greater assault on its memory than to pretend that, as new foundations are now laid, they rest upon anything other than its grave. For, what is left of it is a mere shadow—one that breathes neither its spirit, nor speaks the words of the people to whom it belongs.

The appointment symbolized a blow to meritocracy, as Justice Aminuddin Khan—elevated to lead the Constitutional Bench (pursuant to the 26th Amendment) and now the Constitutional Court (pursuant to the 27th Amendment)—is known primarily for his expertise in civil law.

It raises serious concerns about the intentions of the Parliament and the political will of the Parliamentarians regarding Constitutional reforms and the meritocracy in Pakistan. If the Parliament wants to bring reforms, the Bench and the Court should be led by the Chief Judge with constitutional acumen. In addition, the judges face two options: be transferred against their will, or retire. This constitutional threat will undermine their ability to make independent decisions.

Moreover, the amendments in Article 248 granting lifetime immunity to the President and in Article 243 granting immunity to honorary military ranks including Field Marshal, Admiral of the Fleet, and Marshal of the Air Force are against the very spirit of Islam on which the foundations of Pakistan lie. Islamic principles do not allow immunity to any government functionary, let alone the President, Governors, or holders of honorary ranks.

There are also several examples from the sub-continent’s history which furnish instructive examples of no immunity granted to higher authorities. Author Anand Swarup Misra in his book Law of Bias and Mala Fides mentions an incident from the life of the Mughal emperor Jahangir in which a laundress complained to him that her husband had been killed by an arrow that was discharged by the Empress. However, according to the Empress, she aimed at a fleeting antelope and accidentally struck the unfortunate victim. Emperor Jahangir declined to accept the plea of accident. He offered his own life in expiation, proclaiming that the law demanded, “a husband for a husband.” Although the widow refrained from exacting such a penalty, the conduct of the emperor affirmed the cardinal principle that justice must be administered without regard to personal attachment or position. This instance emphasizes the impartiality of judges and exemplifies the ideal of pure justice where no immunity exists based on one’s position. The same incident has also been quoted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgement of Civil Appeals No. 458 of 2025 etc. case.

Similarly, it is also clear from the Verses of the Holy Quran, the cornerstone behind the laws in Pakistan, “O David! Lo! We have set thee as a Viceroy in the earth; therefore, Judge aright between mankind, and follow not desire that it beguile thee from the way of Allah.” (38:26)

Another concern raised by the opposition is the passing of the Amendment by two-thirds of the Parliament whose own legitimacy is in question. The Parliament of Pakistan neither has the popular will or public support for rushing to pass such an amendment without consultation.

As the new Federal Constitutional Court has sworn in, the nation is left to grapple with a fractured judiciary, an empowered executive, and a lingering question posed by Justice Minallah: if future generations are to see the judge’s robes as symbols of justice, then “our future cannot be a repeat of our past.”

The white color of the Supreme Court of Pakistan symbolizes purity, justice and impartiality, now tarnished by repeated attacks on Pakistan’s Constitution. The Parliament’s interference in the elevation of judges has completely undermined the principle of the Separation of Powers. This will eventually result in elevation of those lawyers to the higher courts who are in symbiotic relationship with the executive.

However, for the disheartened young lawyers and the devastated citizens, remember from dust you shall return, from the ashes we will rise, and in the very words of Justice Shah, “To the young lawyers who now stand at the threshold of their journeys—remember that the law is a calling of conscience. Your education and privilege will go to waste if, when the time comes, you do not stand with the Constitution.”

Let hope stay alive!