Pakistan plunged into a fresh constitutional crisis on Thursday after two senior Supreme Court judges resigned in open protest against the newly enacted 27th Constitutional Amendment. Their resignations came within hours of President Asif Ali Zardari signing the amendment into law, completing its passage through both houses of Parliament. The amendment represents one of the most far-reaching restructurings of Pakistan’s judicial system in decades, and it has immediately drawn fierce criticism from within the highest echelons of the judiciary.
At the centre of the controversy is the amendment’s decision to carve out a new Federal Constitutional Court, an institution that will now hold exclusive jurisdiction over all constitutional matters. The existing Supreme Court — historically Pakistan’s apex court and ultimate guardian of the Constitution — will now be restricted to handling civil and criminal cases only. Critics say this effectively strips the Supreme Court of its constitutional authority and concentrates unprecedented power in a newly created institution.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, one of the Court’s most respected jurists and often regarded as a reform-minded voice, condemned the changes in his resignation letter. He described the amendment as a “grave assault” on Pakistan’s constitutional structure, arguing that it threatens the independence of the judiciary by subordinating it to the executive. According to Shah, dividing the Supreme Court’s authority fractures the unity of the highest court and undermines the very framework on which constitutional democracy rests.
He wrote that remaining on the bench would amount to tacit approval of a constitutional violation. Shah said he could no longer serve in a court that had been stripped of its essential functions, nor could he meaningfully defend the Constitution from within an institution that had lost its constitutional standing. The amendment, he warned, would leave “deep and lasting scars” on Pakistan’s institutions.
Justice Athar Minallah, another influential figure on the bench, issued an equally forceful resignation. He emphasised that he had sworn an oath to uphold “the Constitution”—a living document reflecting the will of the people—not “a constitution” reshaped to suit political convenience. Minallah said he had previously expressed concerns about the amendment’s implications, but those warnings were met with silence. Now, he wrote, the Constitution that the judiciary is sworn to protect has been effectively dismantled.
Minallah’s letter struck a somber tone, lamenting that what remains of the Constitution is only a “shadow” devoid of spirit or democratic purpose. He accused the political establishment of turning judicial robes into symbols of silence and complicity rather than guardianship and moral responsibility. His resignation, he said, was the only ethical path left.
The amendment itself carries immense consequences—not only for the judiciary but also for Pakistan’s civil-military structure. Beyond creating the Federal Constitutional Court, it reshapes how top judicial and military appointments are made. Under the new rules, the prime minister will recommend the Chief Justice of the new Constitutional Court to the president, giving the executive a decisive role in shaping the newly empowered institution.
In the military domain, the amendment formalises the prime minister’s authority over the appointments of the Chief of Army Staff and the Chief of Defence Force. It also abolishes the post of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee effective November 27, 2025. Additionally, the Chief of Defence Forces — who will simultaneously serve as Army Chief — will select the head of the National Strategic Command, further consolidating military authority within a single office. The government has also granted itself the power to confer honorary titles such as Field Marshal or Admiral of the Fleet on senior officers, extending privileges for life.
Supporters of the amendment argue that it is intended to streamline constitutional adjudication and modernise Pakistan’s governing structures. However, critics, including the two resigning judges, warn that the true impact is the weakening of institutional checks and balances. The creation of a separate constitutional court, they say, risks politicising the judicial process and allowing the executive greater influence over constitutional interpretation.
The resignations of Justices Shah and Minallah have intensified political tensions and sparked nationwide debate about the future of Pakistan’s judiciary. Many legal experts say the country has entered uncharted territory, with long-term implications for judicial independence, constitutional governance, and the balance of power between the judiciary, the military, and the executive.
