Constitutions are drafted to protect a nation’s foundational principles, not to weaken or distort them. When Pakistan’s framers sat down in 1973 to write a new social contract for a country still reeling from the loss of East Pakistan, they understood that a Constitution must be flexible enough to evolve, yet firm enough to guard against authoritarian impulses. Amendments were to serve as careful refinements, not weapons to undermine the document’s core spirit.
Yet Pakistan’s constitutional history tells another story. Instead of slow, democratic maturation, our amendments have largely been authored by military strongmen or governments operating under heavy institutional pressure. The high points of constitutionalism in Pakistan have been rare and born of tragedy: first in 1973, when the nation needed a fresh start, and then in 2010, when the 18th Amendment emerged from political consensus forged after the trauma of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. These were the only two moments when Parliament acted not out of self-interest, but out of national responsibility.
The Promise of the 18th Amendment
The 18th Amendment remains the most significant democratic reform since independence. It restored parliamentary supremacy by stripping the Presidency of its destabilising power to summarily dissolve elected governments — a tool repeatedly used by authoritarian regimes to reset the political order. It strengthened provincial autonomy, devolving powers to local governments in a way that finally reflected Pakistan’s federal character.
It also depoliticised judicial appointments by restoring seniority as the guiding principle for selecting the Chief Justice of Pakistan. For a brief moment, political parties that had long treated each other as existential enemies managed to work together. The amendment symbolised a rare democratic consensus where parliamentarians looked beyond their immediate interests to rebuild trust in constitutional rule.
But the promise did not last, and crisis politics returned. Soon after, Pakistan reverted to its familiar cycles of confrontation. Nawaz Sharif, one of the architects of the 18th Amendment, was controversially disqualified by the Supreme Court.
Imran Khan came to power amid allegations of engineered outcomes, and his eventual ouster through a vote of no confidence once again thrust the country into turmoil. Meanwhile, the judiciary’s aggressive use of suo motu powers deepened mistrust in the courts. Parliament attempted to correct this imbalance through the 2023 Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act — a rare but fragile assertion of legislative authority.
By elevating unelected authority while weakening the judiciary, the 27th Amendment undermines the foundational principle of constitutional democracy: that no one is above the law
After the 2024 Election: A Sudden Reversal
The disputed 2024 election produced a fragile coalition of the PML-N, PPP, and other parties. These were the same parties that had celebrated the 18th Amendment as a triumph of civilian supremacy. Yet, within months of the 8 February election, they began walking back the very reforms they once championed. The 26th Amendment altered the mechanism for appointing the Chief Justice, replacing automatic seniority with a selection process from a panel of three. Many observers viewed this as an attempt to sideline Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, a senior judge known for his independent stance and potential future leadership of the judiciary.
Once the new Constitutional Bench was constituted, its decisions quickly aligned with the government’s interests: awarding disputed reserved seats to coalition allies, allowing civilian trials in military courts, and reshaping High Court seniority lists. Each step tightened executive influence over the judiciary and prepared the ground for something even more extraordinary.
The 27th Amendment — A Radical Break
In 2025, the coalition government passed the 27th Amendment, a constitutional overhaul unprecedented even by the standards of Pakistan’s military dictators.
The amendment created a new Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), endowed with absolute authority over all constitutional matters. The FCC’s rulings bind every court in Pakistan, including the Supreme Court, but remarkably, the Supreme Court’s rulings do not bind the FCC. This effectively inverts the judicial hierarchy and places the FCC above the Supreme Court, fragmenting the judicial system and weakening the last institution historically capable of checking executive or military power.
But the amendment went further. It granted lifetime immunity to the Field Marshal/Chief Commander of the Armed Forces and to the President. Both offices are now shielded from any criminal prosecution, investigation, or legal accountability, regardless of the nature or gravity of wrongdoing. This is the most sweeping legal protection ever awarded to unelected power holders in Pakistan’s history. What military regimes once tried to achieve through Provisional Constitutional Orders (PCOs), the 27th Amendment has now achieved through Parliament itself.
Democracy Under Strain
The passage of the amendment triggered shockwaves. When two senior Supreme Court judges and veteran lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan resigned from the Law and Justice Commission in protest, it signalled a deep fracture within the legal community. Their resignations underscored what many fear: that Pakistan’s constitutional architecture is being rewritten (destroyed) to consolidate power in the hands of a small, insulated elite, with the military establishment emerging as the ultimate beneficiary.
A Constitution is meant to safeguard the rights of the people, not shield powerful individuals from accountability or place institutions beyond scrutiny. By elevating unelected authority while weakening the judiciary, the 27th Amendment undermines the foundational principle of constitutional democracy: that no one is above the law.
The Crossroads Ahead
Pakistan now stands at a critical juncture. A Constitution that once symbolised federalism, parliamentary authority, and civilian supremacy is being reengineered to entrench unaccountable power. The question before the country is stark and immediate: if constitutional amendments are no longer used to strengthen democracy, but to erode it, what future remains for constitutional rule in Pakistan? The answer and Pakistan’s democratic survival may depend on how citizens, lawyers, political parties, and institutions respond in the months ahead.
Meanwhile, congratulations to Mr Justice Aminuddin Khan on becoming the First Chief Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court. He deserves it for his accomplished performance.