• LHC judge hearing two petitions against tweaks recuses for ‘personal reasons’
• Lawyers organise rally in Lahore, vow to announce next course of action soon
KARACHI/LAHORE: Days after the 27th Amendment came into effect, a petition landed in the Sindh High Court for its annulment, while a Lahore High Court judge hearing a similar plea recused himself from hearing the case due to “personal reasons”.
On the other hand, the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) organised a rally in Lahore against the new amendment and vowed to hold weekly protests against the recent constitutional tweaks that established ‘a court above the Supreme Court’, namely the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).
In the SHC, the petition filed by Barrister Ali Tahir made the federal government, the FCC chief justice and the FCC judges respondents, asking the court to declare the 27th Amendment “unconstitutional”.
The petitioner said that the recent amendment contemplated the establishment of a separate FCC and curtailment or transfer of the existing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the high courts conferred under the articles 184 (3) and 199 of the Constitution.
“Such an attempt, if permitted to proceed, would fundamentally alter the Constitutional framework, destroy the independence of the judiciary, violate the doctrine of separation of powers and extinguish the citizens rights of access to justice and judicial review guaranteed by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973,” the petitioner said. According to the petition, the FCC and the position of the FCC chief justice could not have been “constitutionally created”.
“It is inherently ultra vires, as no parallel or superior court can be established above the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Such construct would violate the basic structure of the Constitution,” it added.
Regarding the notifications through which FCC judges were appointed, the petitioner claimed that “those who are pretending to hold public office under these shady notifications should also be treated as respondents in a writ of quo warranto. It is obvious that the executive wanted to build a tailor-made court for itself, which is why it rammed these notifications through within hours and filled every seat like it owned the Constitution.”
He added that out of 24 judges of the Supreme Court, FCC CJ Justice Aminduddin Khan was at number four in the seniority list, while Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi ranked ninth, Justice Aamer Farooq ranked 21st, and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi ranked 23rd. It claimed that these appointments raised significant questions about the process, timing, and intent.
The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court itself in multiple precedents, including the Attock Cement case, affirmed that a regular bench of the high court retained the authority to issue declaratory relief and enforce constitutional rights.
“Any attempt to withdraw or reassign this jurisdiction to special benches, particularly those constituted through executive influence, is not only unconstitutional but void ab initio. It violates the doctrine of separation of powers and undermines the principle of judicial independence, which is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended even by a two-third(s) majority.”
The petition urged to strike down the amendment and subsequent action. The petitioner also moved an application before the court, asking the SHC chief justice for a full bench or larger bench comprising five senior-most judges of the SHC to hear the petition.
LHC judge recuses
Meanwhile, Justice Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal of the Lahore High Court on Monday recused himself from hearing two separate petitions challenging the 27th Amendment to the Constitution.
The judge requested the chief justice to fix them before any other appropriate bench, citing personal reasons.
The first petition was filed by lawyers Munir Ahmad and Mian Shabbir Ismail through Advocate Azhar Siddique, arguing that the amendment conflicts with the basic structure and spirit of the 1973 Constitution. The petition alleged that the amendment distorted the country’s 60-year judicial history and tradition, maintaining that a federal constitutional court was never part of the original constitutional scheme.
The petition further argued that the current National Assembly was not a “true constituent assembly” and therefore lacked the authority to introduce such major constitutional changes. In the second plea, a citizen, Hassan Latif, challenged the 27th Amendment. The petition contended that radical changes introduced by the amendment contradicted the preamble of the Constitution and aimed at curtailing the powers of the Supreme Court.
LHCBA meeting
The Lahore High Court Bar Association members held a general house meeting followed by a rally against the 27th Amendment. LHCBA President Asif Nissoana presided over the meeting, which was also attended by Lahore Bar Association (LBA) President Mubashir Rehman and other lawyer leaders. During the meeting, the lawyers rejected the 27th Amendment, alleging that it weakened the Supreme Court.
Mr Niswana said a parallel constitutional court had been created under the amendment, rendering the Supreme Court ineffective. He claimed that there was no court left to protect the fundamental rights of the people. He announced that the LHCBA and the LBA would hold meetings and rallies every Thursday and a lawyers’ action committee would announce the next course of action, he added.
PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja also addressed the meeting, saying the time had come to stand up once again as there was no other option left. He questioned the legality of the appointment of the head of the federal constitutional court made by the prime minister.
After the meeting, dozens of lawyers took out a rally from GPO Chowk to the State Bank of Pakistan on the Mall.
Published in Dawn, November 18th, 2025
