Pakistan's constitutional amendments — the 26th and 27th — have effectively dismantled the judiciary's independence, transferring control over judges to parliament and the executive, according to a detailed analysis published in leading Pakistani daily Dawn. The warning, issued by Anwar Mansoor Khan, a senior advocate of Pakistan's Supreme Court and former Attorney General of Pakistan, underscores what legal observers are calling a structural unravelling of judicial safeguards enshrined in the 1973 Constitution.

The Amendments and What They Changed

The 26th and 27th Amendments restructured the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), shifting its composition so that the executive — acting through parliament — now holds a majority. This means the selection of judges is determined by vote within the JCP rather than on merit. Critics argue this fundamentally compromises the impartiality of judicial appointments.

A further amendment to Article 200 of the Constitution removed the requirement for a judge's consent before transfer from one High Court to another. Previously, no judge could be transferred without their agreement. Under the revised provision, judges who refuse transfer orders can face disciplinary action — effectively equating them with civil servants, according to Khan.

The April 28 Transfers: A Flashpoint

A critical moment came on 28 April, when three judges were transferred from the Islamabad High Court to three other High Courts across the country. Authorities stated the transfers were meant to fill vacancies elsewhere. However, Khan and other legal analysts contend the real purpose was to create vacancies in the Islamabad High Court, enabling the appointment of judges aligned with the government in the capital.

The JCP held a meeting to ratify the transfers — a meeting convened by members despite the Chief Justice of Pakistan's explicit refusal to call it. The Chief Justice characterised the move as an intrusion on judicial independence. The transfers were nonetheless approved by a majority vote within the JCP.

The Federal Constitutional Court: A New Instrument

The establishment of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) marked the first institutional step in this process. Judges to the FCC are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, under the second and third provisions of Clause (3) of Article 175-A of the Constitution. Critics argue that this mechanism ensures only those trusted by the executive reach the FCC bench.

What Legal Experts Are Saying

'The 26th and 27th Amendments have taken away that judicial independence which had been guaranteed by the Constitution, specifically in the Objectives Resolution, which is an integral part of the Constitution and the Preamble to the Constitution. It guarantees that the independence of the judiciary shall be fully secured,' Anwar Mansoor Khan wrote in Dawn.

Khan further argued that the Constitution, which was meant to shield citizens from government overreach, now appears to be functioning in reverse: 'The Constitution appears to be protecting the government from the people who chose to submit to the country's basic law in 1973.'

Local media has also raised alarms, warning that judges who do not comply with executive directives risk removal and reassignment to courts where their ability to protect citizens is curtailed.

What This Means Going Forward

Legal experts warn that the cumulative effect of these changes — altered JCP composition, consent-free transfers, and executive-controlled appointments to the FCC — represents a sustained and systematic erosion of judicial independence in Pakistan. With no immediate legislative reversal in sight, the trajectory suggests judges will face mounting pressure to align with executive preferences or risk career consequences. The long-term implications for rule of law and citizens' fundamental rights remain a deepening concern.