One day, the weakening of today’s judiciary may be viewed as a national misfortune. For now, it feels more like political theatre.
Earlier this week, four Islamabad High Court judges went to the Supreme Court seeking to challenge the newly passed 27th Amendment. Rather than being heard by the country’s top court, they were told to take their concerns to the Federal Constitutional Court — the very body they argue should not exist. In effect, they were instructed to seek relief from an institution whose legality they were questioning.
It was a striking moment. These judges have, for months, expressed deep concern over what they describe as a gradual but deliberate erosion of judicial independence, beginning with the 26th Amendment and culminating in the most recent constitutional changes. Yet their petition seemed to be met with a Supreme Court that was unusually respectful — even submissive — toward an institution created by stripping away its powers.
It bears repeating that these petitioners are not ordinary citizens. They are sitting high court judges who firmly believe the amendment in question violates multiple constitutional principles. Their objections — including fears of politically driven judge transfers, the curtailing of judicial autonomy, and the placement of sympathetic judges to consolidate control — echo concerns raised by legal scholars, international watchdogs, and segments of civil society. The manner in which their plea was dismissed, mirroring the speed with which parliament pushed the amendment through, only reinforces the impression that the judiciary’s future has already been predetermined, without room for real debate or scrutiny.
The legal situation has since grown more tangled. On Saturday, the four judges — joined by a fifth — challenged the transfer of an intra-court appeal from the Supreme Court to the FCC. That appeal concerned a Constitutional Bench ruling that had upheld the transfer of judges from other high courts to the IHC. The petitioners informed the FCC directly that they consider the 27th Amendment unconstitutional and reminded the court that its legality is already under challenge.
Judges who support the amendment are free to maintain their stance, but they must convincingly demonstrate that any decision in favor of the amendment is grounded in constitutional logic, not in another vague judicial doctrine. The case deserves a full, transparent hearing — ideally one broadcast live for the public. This moment offers the FCC a chance to prove its legitimacy. It should not waste it.
