A year ago, Qazi Faez Isa departed as Pakistan’s Chief Justice, leaving behind a parting gift that was at once subtle and seismic: the reversal of the ruling on dissident parliamentary votes. On the surface, it was a legal correction. In reality, it kicked open the gates for the 26th Amendment, forcing lawmakers into voting for what can only be described as the funeral rites of the judiciary. And now, the 27th Constitutional Amendment looms, extending this slow-motion destruction, cementing the subordination of the courts.
Walking into the ceremony celebrating judicial and governmental elites, one could see the rot in plain sight. A constitutional colossus is lauded among pygmies and dwarves. Symbolism replaces substance. This is not ceremonial exaggeration; it is the reflection of a system that has betrayed its own oath. Human rights protections, once the bright promise of judicial oversight, have regressed into a hollow fiction. Edward Gibbon’s observation on princes “permitted for a while to hold a precarious sceptre, dismissed from their thrones as soon as their appointed task was complete” has never felt so prescient. Pakistan’s judges, once expected to be the guardians of law, have been fashioned to fit the yoke of power.
The 26th Amendment decimated judicial authority, eliminating reserved seats in Parliament, expanding military trials for civilians, and enabling politically pliant judges to parachute into the Islamabad High Court. The 27th Amendment compounds this assault. By creating a sprawling federal court as a warehouse for compliant judges, the amendment turns constitutional review from a principled exercise into a bureaucratic shuffle. The Supreme Court, once a sentinel against the abuse of power, is now relegated to petty civil disputes, land quarrels, and perhaps the occasional buffalo wandering into a rice paddy. This is no apex court; this is a clerical office masquerading as one.
Pakistan’s legal system, grounded in common law, is uniquely vulnerable to this kind of manipulation. Unlike civil law countries, where codified statutes dominate, Pakistan relies on judicial precedent and reasoned interpretation. Stripping constitutional review powers from the superior courts is not a mere administrative adjustment; it is a structural subversion of the law itself. Judges are meant to be the final frontier against democratic derailment. The 27th Amendment removes that frontier entirely, leaving the citizenry exposed to the gloved hand of power.
Supporters of the amendment will argue it is a modernization effort. In reality, it does not bring justice to ordinary citizens. It touches only a fraction of cases 98% of litigants remain unaffected. Those seeking justice are not the beneficiaries of this amendment. What has been accomplished is a profound realignment of judicial power, transferring it from the apex courts to a federal court designed to implement, not challenge, authority.
The amendment is emblematic of a broader failure: Pakistan has never lacked constitutional courts, but it has always lacked constitutional courage. Judges, repeatedly pressured to align with the powerful, have often acquiesced. Past eras from martial law regimes to politically manipulated verdicts reveal a pattern: courage is sacrificed, independence is compromised, and the citizen remains defenseless. The 27th Amendment is a structural codification of this historical weakness, turning ad hoc erosion into permanent law.
The political symbolism of this amendment is unmistakable. By sidelining constitutional review, it signals that the judiciary is no longer co-equal with the executive or legislature. It transforms the courts from a forum of accountability into a ceremonial institution. Administrative efficiency is cited as justification, but the true function is ratification, not oversight. The apex court now exists in form only; its function as the defender of rights has been hollowed out.
This is not merely a legal issue, it is a warning about the state of Pakistan’s democracy. Judicial independence has always been the last bulwark against authoritarian overreach. From landmark rulings protecting human rights to interventions against electoral manipulation, superior courts have occasionally upheld constitutional norms, even if inconsistently. The 27th Amendment removes this safeguard, leaving the executive free to override democratic processes. Pakistan’s courts, historically a check on power, are now instruments of its entrenchment.
Yet all is not lost. Pakistan’s legal tradition is resilient. Principles of common law and judicial reasoning persist, embedded in the professional ethos of lawyers and judges alike. Structural limitations imposed by the 27th Amendment cannot erase decades of jurisprudential practice or the collective memory of constitutional fidelity. Future courts, civil society actors, and legal professionals may still find ways to assert independence, challenge the amendment’s reach, and defend the Constitution even if the formal powers of the Supreme Court have been diminished.
The 27th Amendment is both symptom and accelerant. It reflects the longstanding vulnerability of Pakistan’s judiciary. It accelerates the hollowing out of constitutional safeguards, ensuring that the courts no longer serve the citizens. Its immediate effect is procedural; its long-term impact is structural: A judiciary that survives in name but not in function. The Supreme Court, once a beacon of constitutional oversight, now risks becoming a monument to neglect, a colossus surrounded by pygmies, honored in ceremony but hollowed in substance.
The lesson of the 27th Amendment is stark: constitutional institutions only endure if society defends them. Without vigilance, courage, and principled action, Pakistan’s judiciary will remain a ceremonial vestige, incapable of protecting rights, checking power, or fulfilling the promise of the Constitution. This amendment is a warning, not just to judges and lawyers, but to every citizen: when the guardians of the law are rendered powerless, the Constitution itself becomes a relic.
vakum ambalaj