A coalition of 38 human rights activists and civil society members from across Pakistan has submitted a petition to the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the 26th Amendment. They argue that the amendment poses a significant threat to judicial independence and undermines the separation of powers.
The petition asserts that the 26th Amendment grants excessive authority to the executive and legislative branches over judicial appointments and cases involving fundamental rights. According to the petitioners, this shift weakens legal safeguards against human rights violations and erodes the judiciary’s ability to act as an impartial check on government power.
What sets this legal challenge apart is its leadership by civil society representatives, including trade unionists, student leaders, and advocates for press freedom and gender equality. They argue that the amendment restricts legal avenues for marginalized communities, curtails freedoms of expression and assembly, and empowers the state to act without sufficient accountability.
The petition highlights concerns that the amendment could be exploited to suppress dissent, undermine workers’ rights, and interfere in disputes over interprovincial resource allocation. It calls on the Supreme Court to nullify the amendment, emphasizing the importance of preserving democratic principles and safeguarding judicial independence.
The Supreme Court is anticipated to review all challenges to the amendment, with legal experts closely monitoring the proceedings. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for Pakistan’s constitutional framework.
The 26th Amendment, passed in October 2024, introduced sweeping changes to the judiciary’s structure and appointment processes. Among its most notable provisions is the alteration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s selection process. Instead of a seniority-based system, the amendment empowers a Special Parliamentary Committee to nominate the Chief Justice from among the three most senior Supreme Court judges, with a fixed term of three years.
Proponents of the amendment, including the ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, argue that these reforms are essential to address judicial overreach and restore balance among the government’s branches. They claim that past judicial decisions have disrupted democratic processes and that the amendment reinforces parliamentary sovereignty.
However, the amendment has drawn sharp criticism from judicial experts and opposition parties. Critics argue that it compromises judicial independence by allowing the legislature undue influence over judicial appointments. The International Commission of Jurists has condemned the amendment as a “blow to judicial independence,” warning that it politicizes the judiciary and weakens the separation of powers.
Opposition parties, particularly the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), have denounced the amendment as an attempt to undermine the judiciary’s autonomy. They argue that it enables the executive branch to exert control over the judiciary, diminishing its role as a check on governmental power. The PTI has described the amendment’s passage as a “black day” in Pakistan’s constitutional history, vowing to continue its opposition.
As the Supreme Court prepares to deliberate on the petition, the debate over the 26th Amendment continues to intensify, with its potential impact on Pakistan’s democracy and judicial system hanging in the balance.
