26th, 27th amendments 'destroyed Constitution', says former SC judge Shah

ISLAMABAD: Former Supreme Court judge Justice (retd) Shah has outlined a plan to resist what he termed 'autocracy', stating that the 26th and 27th constitutional amendments have 'destroyed the Constitution'.

Former judge's criticism of constitutional amendments

The former apex court judge launched a scathing critique of the two recent constitutional amendments, asserting that they have fundamentally undermined the country's constitutional framework. Justice (retd) Shah described the amendments as having destroyed the Constitution, signalling deep concern over the direction of governance in Pakistan.

Plan to resist 'autocracy'

In his remarks, the former Supreme Court judge went beyond mere criticism and laid out a plan to counter what he characterised as autocratic tendencies in the current political environment. He outlined steps that could be taken to resist the erosion of constitutional principles that he believes has been brought about by the passage of the 26th and 27th amendments.

The 26th Constitutional Amendment, which was passed in recent months, introduced significant changes to the judicial appointment process and the powers of the judiciary, sparking widespread debate among legal experts, political parties, and civil society organisations. The 27th Amendment further added to these changes, drawing criticism from various quarters.

Justice (retd) Shah's remarks add to the growing chorus of voices from within the legal fraternity expressing alarm over what they see as the dilution of judicial independence through legislative action. His decision to present a structured plan of resistance marks an escalation in the opposition to these constitutional changes from members of the legal community.

The former judge's comments come at a time when Pakistan's political landscape remains deeply polarised, with the ruling coalition and opposition differing sharply on the merits and implications of the constitutional amendments. Supporters of the amendments have argued that the changes were necessary to reform the judicial system, while critics maintain that they represent an attempt to curtail the independence of the judiciary.

The debate surrounding the 26th and 27th amendments continues to dominate legal and political discourse in the country, with retired judges, practising lawyers, and bar associations taking varying positions on the matter.