Pakistan is facing a constitutional and political crisis. The passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, coming months after the disputed 8 February 2024 general elections, has begun an intense debate across Pakistan. The amendment consolidates extraordinary executive protections, weakens judicial independence, and alters Pakistan’s constitutional balance at a moment when electoral legitimacy remains heavily contested.
The 27th Amendment arrives amid contested claims over the 2024 elections. Legal experts have pointed to irregularities in vote forms, discrepancies between cast and recorded votes, and interference in several constituencies. Critics argue the amendment entrenches a disputed outcome while shielding decision-makers and institutions from accountability.
A key concern raised by constitutional lawyers is the amendment’s reconfiguration of judicial authority. Earlier, election tribunals were to be headed by sitting High Court judges. Subsequent legal changes introduced the appointment of retired judges, while recent measures have enabled the formation of special “constitutional benches”, raising questions about selective jurisprudence and potential executive influence over judicial panels. Two major judicial outcomes relating to the trial of civilians in military courts and to the allocation of reserved seats to independent candidates were overturned soon after new benches were constituted. These reversals further deepened fears that the judiciary had lost autonomy in politically sensitive matters.
Another contentious aspect of the 27th Amendment is the new framework for transferring High Court judges. The power to shift judges from one court to another at any time, critics contend, threatens judicial independence by creating an environment of institutional uncertainty and potential coercion. Observers warn that such powers may enable pressures on judges engaged in politically significant cases, thereby weakening public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.
These developments have sparked concern in Sindh, where the amendments resonate with longstanding issues over resource control, land distribution, water rights, and provincial autonomy. Civil society groups, especially from rural and agrarian areas, see the consolidation of constitutional power as part of a wider centralisation affecting land, water, and mineral governance.
One of the most visible responses emerged on 16 November 2025, when thousands of women, peasants, students, lawyers, and rights activists marched from Hyderabad’s City Gate to the Press Club. Organised primarily by Sindhyani Tahreek, the demonstration opposed the 26th and 27th Amendments, corporate farming initiatives, the expansion of strategic canals and dams on the Indus, and the extractive policies linked to mineral legislation. Participants argued that these measures collectively threatened Sindh’s territorial unity, natural resources, and constitutional rights.
The criminalisation of peaceful protest reflects shrinking civic space and the emergence of what many described as a form of “constitutional authoritarianism
The march also highlighted issues of gendered violence, including killings under the pretext of karo-kari, early marriages, and tribal practices that continue under local power structures. Organisers framed these as governance failures that reflect wider patterns of impunity and institutional dysfunction. The movement gained support from writers, academics, district bar associations, and human rights groups across Sindh and other provinces.
In the days following the Hyderabad march, several First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered against leaders of Awami Tahreek and Sindhyani Tahreek. The action prompted widespread criticism from organisations such as the World Sindhi Congress, the Communist Party of Pakistan, and various district bar associations in Sindh and Balochistan. Rights groups argued that the criminalisation of peaceful protest reflects shrinking civic space and the emergence of what many described as a form of “constitutional authoritarianism.”
Underlying these developments is a broader national context. Pakistan’s constitutional trajectory over the past two decades has oscillated between civilian governance, hybrid arrangements, and the expanded influence of unelected institutions. The 18th Constitutional Amendment, enacted in 2010, had strengthened provincial autonomy and rebalanced federal-provincial relations. Recent legislative and administrative measures, including the powers granted to the Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC), corporate farming permissions, and revisions in mining and minerals management, are perceived by several provincial groups as eroding the gains of the 18th Amendment.
In Sindh, concerns about corporate farming have been particularly acute. The allotment of large tracts of land to private and semi-state entities, including those linked with security institutions, is viewed by activists as a threat to traditional agrarian livelihoods. Likewise, the proposed construction of major dams and strategic canals on the Indus is criticised for potentially exacerbating water scarcity in the lower riparian areas and altering the province’s ecological balance. Opposition leaders argue that such policies, combined with the new constitutional amendments, risk disempowering provincial institutions and facilitating resource extraction without adequate local oversight.
The constitutional debate has taken on a symbolic dimension as well. For many activists, the contrast between the political leadership’s elite educational backgrounds, including those who graduated from prominent Western institutions, and the grassroots democratic instincts of rural communities, underscores a widening gulf in political priorities. Historical narratives of resistance, such as Sindh’s opposition to authoritarian rule in earlier decades, shape the current mobilisation.
The controversy surrounding a possible 28th Amendment, which some fear may further alter provincial boundaries or dilute federal principles, has intensified apprehensions. Civil society groups, political parties from smaller provinces, and legal experts have warned against any constitutional redesign undertaken without a broad national consensus.
As Pakistan navigates this turbulent period, the questions raised go beyond any single amendment. They pertain to electoral legitimacy, judicial independence, federalism, and the space for peaceful democratic expression. The unfolding tensions, whether in courtrooms, parliament, or the streets, reflect a deeper struggle over the country’s constitutional future.