ISLAMABAD: A petition was filed in the Supreme Court on Friday challenging alleged attempts to “dilute or eliminate the constitutional jurisdiction of the superior judiciary” through the proposed 27th Constitutional Amendment.
The planned amendment has triggered concerns that it could roll back powers devolved under the landmark 18th Amendment and alter the structure and functioning of the superior judiciary.
According to the petition, the proposed amendment envisages the creation of separate “Constitutional Courts” and the transfer or curtailment of the existing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the high courts under Articles 184(3) and 199 of the Constitution.
“Such an attempt, if allowed to proceed, would fundamentally distort the constitutional framework, erode judicial independence, breach the separation of powers, and deny citizens their constitutional right to access justice and judicial review,” the petition filed by Barrister Ali Tahir stated.
The Federation of Pakistan, the Senate chairperson, and the National Assembly speaker have been cited as respondents.
Barrister Tahir urged the court to declare that any move—whether in the form of a bill, draft, or discussion—aimed at curtailing, transferring, suspending, or abolishing the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or high courts is unconstitutional and void, as it violates the independence of the judiciary and the basic structure of the Constitution.
Article 199 governs the jurisdiction of high courts, while Article 184(3) empowers the Supreme Court to take up cases involving questions of “public importance” relating to the enforcement of fundamental rights.
The petitioner further requested the apex court to affirm that its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) forms an “essential, inviolable, and non-amendable” part of the Constitution, beyond the reach of any constitutional amendment, legislation, or executive action.
He also asked the court to declare that any attempt to establish a parallel or superior forum, such as a proposed “Constitutional Court,” distinct from or substituting the Supreme Court or high courts, would be unconstitutional under Articles 175 to 191, which govern the establishment and jurisdiction of courts.
The plea sought affirmation that the Supreme Court and the high courts are the “sole and exclusive repositories of judicial power” under the Constitution and that their jurisdiction and independence cannot be interfered with or restructured by any organ of the state.
The petitioner requested the court to restrain all state organs—including the Federation, the federal government, and Parliament—from taking any steps to introduce, debate, or pass the proposed 27th Amendment or any measure that could affect the jurisdiction of the superior judiciary.
He further urged the court to declare that any constitutional amendment subjugating the judiciary to the executive or legislature, or undermining judicial review, would be contrary to the supremacy of the Constitution and void ab initio.
The plea also sought directions requiring all state institutions and officials to act in strict accordance with the Constitution, uphold judicial independence, and refrain from any measure that diminishes the authority of the superior courts.
Barrister Tahir requested that the Supreme Court reaffirm its role as the “ultimate guardian of the Constitution,” empowered and obligated to protect its framework, including its own jurisdiction, against any encroachment.
Pending adjudication, the petition asked the court to bar the Federation and other state bodies from initiating any legislative, executive, or administrative process related to the proposed 27th Amendment and to prohibit any parliamentary discussion or voting on measures that alter the constitutional jurisdiction of the superior judiciary.
It further urged the court to declare that any step taken in violation of such restraint would be without lawful authority and liable to be struck down.
Finally, the petitioner requested interim directions to ensure that the jurisdiction and independence of the Supreme Court and high courts remain “fully protected, preserved, and unimpaired” during the proceedings and sought any further orders necessary to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law.
