Supreme Court declines to entertain petition against 27th Constitutional Amendment

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has declined to entertain a petition filed by the Lahore Bar Association (LBA) challenging the 27th Constitutional Amendment and the transfer of three Islamabad High Court judges to other high courts.

According to legal sources, the petition was returned by the Supreme Court registrar’s office to the Advocate-on-Record without issuing a written order. The petition had been submitted through senior lawyer Hamid Khan.

The petition had argued that the 27th Amendment undermined judicial independence and exceeded parliamentary authority, claiming that amendments affecting the structure and powers of the judiciary violate the Constitution’s basic features. It also challenged the transfer of judges under amended provisions of Article 200, alleging a lack of transparency, criteria and institutional justification.

German humanitarian Anita Khawaja receives top German honour in Pakistan

However, the registrar’s decision to return the petition without a written order has raised procedural questions within legal circles. Some lawyers argue that even if the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction under Article 184(3), procedural fairness requires a written order outlining objections, which can then be challenged through appeal.

Legal experts also noted that the matter remains politically and constitutionally sensitive, particularly as debates continue over the creation and jurisdiction of the proposed Federal Constitutional Court.

The petition further contended that Parliament, as a constituted body, cannot alter constitutional provisions in a manner that weakens judicial independence. It also argued that the newly established constitutional framework cannot adjudicate challenges to its own legality.

Sources said the Lahore Bar Association is expected to file an appeal against the registrar’s decision in the coming days, keeping the constitutional debate active within Pakistan’s legal community.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between segments of the legal fraternity and constitutional reforms that have reshaped judicial authority and the transfer mechanisms of superior court judges.