Constitutional amendments 26 and 27 were formally rejected by a large lawyers’ convention held in Sindh (High Court Bar Association auditorium). The amendments were termed as a “direct assault on the basic structure of the Constitution” and the convention decided to oppose them and take protest measures in Sindh.
Why the lawyers rejected the amendments
Threat to judicial independence
According to the lawyers, the amendments shift, remove, or reallocate powers that used to belong to the Supreme Court and the higher judiciary, and redesign new institutional frameworks like the Federal Constitutional Court proposed under the 27th Amendment. They fear these changes allow the executive to control appointments to these new courts and undermine the independence of judges’ decisions.
Undermining the balance of power (separation of power)
Pakistan’s constitution rests on a balance of power between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The lawyers argue that moving constitutional review and related powers away from the Supreme Court to a government created body will disrupt this balance and further strengthen the executive at the expense of the judiciary.
Legal and practical confusion
The splitting of constitutional jurisdiction or the establishment of a new top court will, at best, leave ordinary citizens and lawyers guessing about where they should be filing constitutional petitions. Appeals will take longer, backlogs will build, and the steps of legal processes will, in general, become more convoluted.
Attorneys view this as limiting justice and raising the costs of litigation.
Historic context: reaction to the 26th Amendment
The 26th Amendment had already drawn criticism from lawyers and global legal institutions as a blow to the independence of the judiciary. For this reason, the Sindh convention viewed the 27th as a continuation or deepening of those changes and rejected both. (See earlier legal critiques of the 26th Amendment.)
International Commission of Jurists
What “an attack on the basic structure of the Constitution” means (in plain language)
The “basic structure” refers to the fundamental elements the Constitution protects — such as judicial independence, the rule of law, separation of powers, and governance through democracy.
Describing an amendment as an "attack" on a structure indicates that it goes beyond merely changing some rules. Rather, it signifies that fundamental safeguards are being dismantled or eliminated, thus altering the fundamental attributes of the Constitution. Those amendments, from the convention’s perspective, transforms ordinary reform into something that puts the fundamental characteristics at risk.
The immediate consequences of the Sindh lawyers’ actions.
The Sindh convention passed the resolution, which rejected the amendments and called for coordinated protest/struggle actions in the province (scheduled lawyers’ conventions and protests across Sindh). Against the backdrop of the 27th Amendment, they called for a dedicated movement and for the 26th Amendment’s consequences to be addressed.
The 27th Amendment quickly became a subject of legal and political discourse as several parliamentarians and members of the opposition also expressed political concern or rejection to the 27th Amendment.
Business Recorder
Practical implications for lawyers, courts, and citizens.
For lawyers: changes to which court hears which constitutional cases, different rules concerning the appointment and selection of judges, and the expectation to tolerate executive-lite decisions on a court that arguably influences outcomes. These changes impact the day-to-day practice and the overarching career outlook.
For the courts: institutional roles may be subject to redistribution, and sovereign cutting and restructuring the benches along with altering the rulings that set precedents or the path of appeals will create a loss of confidence in the judiciary.
For citizens: if judicial independence is eroded, citizens may not get neutral decisions in cases against the state; the right to a fair remedy, as well as the right to have one’s rights upheld, may be put in jeopardy.
