Pakistan Constitutional Amendments:

[Meengla]

None from our immediate neighbourhood has been able to prove to be great rulers.
They seem to get surrounded by coteries of Yes Men, gobble up more and more power, start implementing agendas without vision and calibre and lead their nations into downward path.
Munir is just starting and initial few moves appear to be on a similar track.

And the Modi regime is very democratic?? I hear that your Jaishankar has been reduced to being a Yes Man of Modi because everyone who enters into the small cabinet meeting is basically Modi's Yes Man--and it shows in India's disastrous foreign policy since Modi came to power.
Your tears for Pakistan's judicial reforms somehow don't sound sincere and once again India's views align with certain political views inside Pakistan. Either you are not aware of or ignoring what was done by the topmost Judges of Pakistan since the mid 2000s and the kind of damage that caused to Pakistan's politics and its economy. Pakistanis are too civilized otherwise some of those 'honorable' Judges would be put in prison for what they did!
As for the dictatorship vs democracy argument: Democracy in Pakistan died when Bhutto was deposed. Since then, barring a very short period in the 90s when Nawaz enjoyed real power, all the govts in Pakistan have been in alliance with the Establishment.
Finally, some members, notably the expats, in this forum are upset because the same long term strategy which their Messiah Khan was devising to rule for ten years is given the Constitutional cover now. I can absolutely assure you, if he was the PM and Bajwa the Army Chief then these changes would be oh-so-wonderful.

 

[Forsvaret]

Your tears for Pakistan's judicial reforms…

I stopped reading after this BS…

 

[hasssanali8998]

Munir is no Lee Kuan Yew.. Munir is a third rate drop out, lets not kid ourselves on this.

Your logic to try to justify this, on the basis that he may be the next "Lee Kuan Yew" is wrong.

i was just answering his question, geez man , what is with u guys and assuming everyone is a bootlicker

 

[hasssanali8998]

But these interns hired by boots to defend their Hazrat Asim Muneer don’t really care about that.

yes man they aren't even feeding us

 

[Ali_Baba]

i was just answering his question, geez man , what is with u guys and assuming everyone is a bootlicker

ok - sorry. It is a topic that kick of a reflex action ...

 

[ghazi52]

Amendments have also been made to grant lifetime immunity from arrest, and all criminal and civil proceedings to the President and anyone holding the ranks of Field Marshal, Admiral of the Fleet, and Marshal of the Air Force. The position of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee has been abolished. The National Strategic Command has been transferred to the military.

The army chief will be the Chief of Defence Forces, making him the head of all military services, including the army, navy and air force. The Field Marshal has been empowered to retain his rank, privileges and uniform for life.

And finally, there is another person-specific amendment which allows Justice Yahya Afridi to retain his title of the CJP. After him, the title may no longer reside at the Supreme Court.

 

[ghazi52]

Did the judiciary need this overhaul?​

According to the regime, its unelected parliamentarians and pro-regime opinion makers, these amendments are necessary to control a superior judiciary that had become all-powerful and was stepping outside its constitutional role.

Some judges, they say, are too “independent”, guilty of judicial overreach, and that is not desirable. The Saqib Nisar, Khosa and Bandial terms are particularly lamented.

Let’s divide “judicial overreach” into two categories. The first category is where courts have interfered in politics or persecuted politicians, and the second category is where courts have made populist decisions that interfered with policy.

When courts have interfered with politics, endorsed martial laws or removed prime ministers, it was not because they were “independently” exercising their own preferences. It was because they were too susceptible to pressure from certain quarters that used them as tools for political engineering. Decisions in Maulvi Tamizuddin, Dosso, Nusrat Bhutto, and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto are a testament to the courts being used to achieve state objectives and not judicial preferences.

More recently, the judges of the Islamabad High Court, in a display of historic courage and national spirit, through their letter to the then-CJP Qazi Faez Isa and more recently through petitions before the Supreme Court, have documented the kind of coercion and pressure judges in this country are subject to when they act “independently”.

Mere days ago, Justice Athar Minallah, in a letter to Chief Justice Afridi, detailed the pressure judges were under before passing an “undesirable” judgment in favour of the PTI in the reserved seats matter.

 

[Ali_Baba]

The Field Marshal has been empowered to retain his rank, privileges and uniform for life.

Greed and corruption - it ends up destroying everything in the end.

 

[ARMalik]

27th Amendment: Chief Justice convenes SC Full Court meeting today​

Terence J Sigamony Published November 14, 2025 Updated about an hour ago
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Comments


Follow us
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi summoned a Full Court meeting today (Friday) over the 27th Amendment, the sources said.

Three judges, including Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Athar Minallah, and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, wrote letters to the Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, urging him to convene a Full Court meeting to discuss the 27th Amendment.

The meeting will be held before the Friday prayer, the sources further said, adding that all judges of the Supreme Court in this regard have been informed.


27th Amendment: Chief Justice urged to convene a ‘judicial conference’ for ‘open dialogue’

After the signature by President Asif Ali Zardari, the 27th Amendment has become part of the Constitution. Both Houses of Parliament have earlier passed the 27th Amendment.

Justice Panhwar, in his letter opposing the amendment, cited concerns over the curtailment of the court’s jurisdiction. “There comes a time when silence is not caution but abdication. I believe such a time may now be upon us,” he wrote.

Justice Panhwar noted that the 27thAmendment “appears to touch the very foundations upon which the edifice of our judiciary rests.” “It speaks of changes that may bring the executive and legislature into areas long reserved for judicial independence,” he cautioned.

Emphasizing the sanctity of an independent judiciary, Justice Panhwar stated that judicial independence “is not a matter of privilege; it is the very condition upon which liberty itself depends.” He warned that “If the judiciary is not free from fear, influence, or control, then the rule of law becomes but a phrase—hollow and without breath.” In his six-page letter, Justice Mansoor asked the incumbent CJP that you, as the “Head of the Judiciary”, are the trustee of this institution. Therefore, it is your constitutional and moral duty to ensure that no amendment affecting the judiciary proceeds without the judiciary’s considered, collegial, and recorded response.” “To permit otherwise would be to allow the judiciary to be restructured without its own participation, violating both constitutional propriety and the principle of separation of powers,” he added.

The SC senior puisne judge questioned, “Have the judges of the constitutional courts-the Supreme Court, the Federal Shariat Court, and the High Courts-been invited to deliberate on the proposed amendment and record their institutional response? If not, the process stands stripped of constitutional propriety and democratic legitimacy.”

Justice Mansoor wrote that until the questions [surrounding the 26th Amendment] are conclusively settled, any further attempt to alter the judicial architecture risks camouflaging unresolved constitutional infirmities and casting further doubt on the credibility of both the amendment process and the constitutional order.

Justice Athar Minallah also urged the CJP to convene a judicial conference to have an open institutional dialogue with all judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to consider threats to the independence of the judiciary.

In his seven-page letter, he recounted the role of the superior judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, in the past supporting the dictators, who had trampled the constitutions, thus eroding people’s trust in the institution.

“The Supreme Court, by design or omission, has too often been employed as an instrument to suppress the will of the people, rather than to safeguard it. From the validation of the dissolution of the first expression of the will of the people, the Constituent Assembly, to the repeated endorsement of unconstitutional interventions by unelected power centres,” he wrote.

Former judges and the senior lawyers asked the CJP to call a Full Court meeting to deliberate on the implications of the proposed 27th Amendment and to articulate the judiciary’s collective stance.

Former judges, including ex-CJP Jawad S Khawaja, Justice Mushir Alam, ex-senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court, former Justice Nadeem Akhtar, ex- ex-senior puisne judge of the Sindh High Court, and former Attorney Generals of Pakistan Munir A. Malik, and Anwar Mansoor Khan, along with former Presidents of Supreme Court Bar Association Akram Sheikh, Ali Ahmed Kurd, Amanullah Kanrani and Abid Zuberi, and senior lawyers Khawaja Ahmed Hosain, Salahuddin Ahmed and Shabnam Nawaz Awan. They have expressed grave concern over the 27th Constitutional Amendment.

A group of lawyers – including Asad Rahim Khan and Zeeshaan Hashmi – have also filed a petition in the apex court against the amendment.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

27th Amendment: Chief Justice convenes SC Full Court meeting today

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi summoned a Full Court meeting today (Friday) over the 27th...

www.brecorder.com

What are they going to do?? They do not have the authority anymore to talk on constututional issues.

 

[Forsvaret]

Amendments have also been made to grant lifetime immunity from arrest, and all criminal and civil proceedings to the President and anyone holding the ranks of Field Marshal, Admiral of the Fleet, and Marshal of the Air Force.

@Meengla must be getting lifetime orgasm over this one.

 

[Forsvaret]

What are they going to do?? They do not have the authority anymore to talk on constututional issues.

Exactly this of course:

 

[ghazi52]

Parliamentary supremacy or constitutional democracy?

The regime and its friends will tell you that Parliament is supreme and can amend the Constitution as it wishes. They will also tell you that such amendments cannot be questioned by any court because of Parliament’s absolute power to amend laws under Article 239 of the Constitution.

There are several responses to this claim of parliamentary supremacy. The first and most intellectually honest response is that constitutional democracies and legal traditions across the world disagree about the origin and distribution of power within a constitutional separation of powers arrangement.

Common law systems such as the USA and India have stood by constitutional supremacy. The courts have extensive powers of judicial review, and in India and other countries, the basic structure doctrine is recognised, which means that the basic features of the constitution, such as separation of powers, democracy, and independence of the judiciary, cannot be amended away by parliament.

This indicates that the legislature cannot amend the basic social contract into anything it desires simply because it has the procedural ability to do so. The doctrine is also recognised by the Supreme Court in District Bar Association Rawalpindi vs Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2015 SC 401).

 

[Forsvaret]

Parliamentary supremacy or constitutional democracy?

Neither. It’s "constitutional" BOOTOCRACY.

 

[Meengla]

The longterm effects of these changes remain to be seen but I believe these changes are devised because of the 'do or die' situation Pakistan faces, especially with significant chances for a major conflict with India. Also the economy: Barely three years ago, Pakistan was facing a 'fiscal default' which Sri Lanka, much to its global embarrassment, had just faced; I remember some PDF members even said that Pakistan had already defaulted and even Kh. Asif alluded to that. It was a dire situation for Pakistan but that situation has considerably improved since then, whether one admits that or not.
Going forward, there is going to be focus and continuity of policies to face both internal and external threats/challenges. In that regard, it is to be noted that a lot of discussions have happened, involving many political parties and not all those who have signed up to it are happy because they didn't get what they needed for their constituents. For example, MQM is hellbent on the 28th Amendment soon so that the Local Bodies system is brought back so that the PPP Waderas stealing from Karachi is stopped. That's a sign that the changes are not just one person, or one institution doing all that: There is collective wisdom and feedback, factoring in decades of knowledge and pressure groups. Yes, there is a the ultimate military stamp of authority on it but that doesn't mean it is all about one person General Asim Munir.

 

[ghazi52]

Separately, as argued by Justice Isa in his Rawalpindi Bar judgment, the 1973 Constitution did not envision parliamentary sovereignty, which prevented courts from reviewing amendments. Article 239’s bar on judicial review of amendments was introduced in the 8th Amendment so a dictator, General Zia-ul-Haq, could maximise his own power. Therefore, these provisions are inherently undemocratic and illegitimate.

There is also the preamble to the 1973 Constitution, which seeks to establish representative democracy, federalism and an independent judiciary. If all of these features may be amended away, then what is the nature of the constitutional document?

We should consider whether a strong, independent judiciary as a watchdog of salient constitutional features is more likely to serve our democracy and protect fundamental rights, or an entirely unchecked parliament with unlimited legislative powers.

While reasonable (and honest) people may disagree about the origins of constituent and amendment powers and constitutional versus legislative supremacy, one thing should not be lost in the noise of seemingly innocent democratic arguments: even if parliament is supreme, an embellished parliament, representing the interests of a select few, does not have the legitimacy to amend the Constitution of Pakistan into oblivion.

Legitimate constitutional amendments are the product of democratic consensus, public debate and transparent collaboration over months and years, not the work of invisible forces rushed through in hours and days.