Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi has called a full court meeting to deliberate on the 27th Constitutional Amendment, which was recently passed by both houses of Parliament. According to sources, the meeting will be held on Friday, where the Supreme Court judges are expected to discuss the implications and constitutional impact of the 27th Constitutional Amendment in detail.
The move comes after multiple Supreme Court judges, including Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, and Justice Athar Minallah, wrote separate letters urging the Chief Justice to convene a full court session. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, in his letter, emphasized the need for a clause-by-clause review of the amendment to ensure that the basic structure of the Constitution and the institutional balance of power remain intact. He clarified that his request was not made in protest but as a matter of judicial responsibility.
Justice Panhwar also proposed consulting the “Law and Justice Commission” and other policymaking bodies, warning that the 27th Amendment could potentially disturb the equilibrium between state institutions. His stance was echoed by other senior judges who expressed concern about the broader implications of the legislation.
Justice Athar Minallah, in his letter, called for an in-depth discussion on the growing threats to judicial independence. He noted that the judiciary had, at times, been used by the “unelected elite” to suppress public sentiment, and stressed the need for judicial unity to protect the Constitution’s sanctity. Similarly, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah warned that silence in the face of institutional challenges would weaken the judiciary’s credibility. He reminded that history remembers those who stood firm for constitutional supremacy and independence.
The call for a full court session follows the Senate’s passage of the controversial 27th Constitutional Amendment Bill for the second time. Senate Chairman Yousuf Raza Gilani announced that the bill had been passed with 64 votes in favour and only four against, meeting the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority.