In a bold assertion of judicial autonomy, five Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges have lodged a petition contesting the controversial transfer of their intra-court appeal from the Supreme Court to the newly established Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). This move underscores escalating tensions over the 27th Constitutional Amendment’s impact on Pakistan’s judicial framework, raising alarms about the erosion of core constitutional principles.
The dispute traces back to a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the administrative transfers of several IHC judges as procedurally valid. Dissatisfied with the five-member bench’s majority decision, the affected jurists—Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Saman Rafat Imtiaz, and Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri—filed an intra-court appeal. However, invoking the 27th Amendment, the case was swiftly redirected to the FCC, where a six-member bench led by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, alongside Justices Hassan Rizvi, Baqar Najafi, KK Agha, Rozi Khan, and Arshad Hussain Shah, is set to convene on November 24.
At the heart of the petition is a vehement objection to the FCC’s jurisdiction. The judges argue that the amendment oversteps constitutional boundaries by reallocating appellate powers, thereby compromising the judiciary’s independence. “The 27th Constitutional Amendment cannot be used to curtail the powers or jurisdiction of the judiciary, nor can it be employed to undermine judicial independence,” the filing declares. They invoke landmark Supreme Court precedents affirming the 1973 Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine, which delineates clear boundaries among the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
Further, the petitioners decry the amendment’s introduction of intelligence-based and structural oversight mechanisms as “inconsistent with established constitutional safeguards.” They maintain that such provisions cannot restructure or diminish the courts’ roles, potentially tilting the balance toward executive influence and weakening institutional checks.
This challenge arrives at a pivotal moment for Pakistan’s legal landscape, where the FCC—empowered by recent reforms—handles select high-stakes appeals. Critics view the transfers as symptomatic of broader efforts to centralize control, while supporters argue they streamline judicial efficiency. The IHC judges’ stance not only seeks to revert the appeal to the Supreme Court but also aims to fortify safeguards against future encroachments.
As the November 24 hearing looms, legal observers anticipate rigorous scrutiny. A favorable ruling for the petitioners could reaffirm judicial primacy, while an FCC affirmation might solidify the amendment’s reach. For now, this petition stands as a clarion call for preserving the judiciary’s unyielding role in upholding democratic norms.
