Former judges urge Pakistan chief justice to call full court meeting on 27th Amendment

Former judges and senior advocates of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have warned Chief Justice Yahya Afridi that the proposed Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025 represents the most serious challenge to judicial independence since the country’s highest court was created nearly seven decades ago.

In a strongly worded letter dated November 9, a group of retired judges, former attorneys general, and leading bar figures said the amendment would amount to the “biggest and most radical restructuring” of the judicial system since the establishment of the Supreme Court in 1956.

They cautioned that the proposal poses an “unprecedented threat” to the court’s constitutional authority by potentially subordinating it and stripping it of core jurisdiction.

The letter said no civilian or military government had previously sought to diminish the Supreme Court’s position in such a manner.

“It should be obvious to your Lordship, as the principal custodian of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, that the proposed Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025 is the biggest and most radical restructuring of the Federal Appellate Court structure since the Government of India Act, 1935,” the document stated.

Call for immediate full court meeting

The signatories urged CJ Afridi to convene a Full Court Meeting without delay to craft a unified judicial response before parliament moves ahead with the bill. Lawmakers could vote as early as November 11, they said.

They noted that the Supreme Court has “every right and power to give its input” on constitutional amendments that affect its role and structure.

“If your Lordship is in agreement with us that this proposed Amendment Act is the biggest and most radical restructuring of the Supreme Court of Pakistan since its inception,” the letter said, “we would most respectfully and fully expect your Lordship to call a Full Court Meeting immediately and without any delay.”

Warning of consequences if court stays silent

The letter warned that inaction would be interpreted as surrendering the Supreme Court’s authority and constitutional standing.

If the chief justice declined to intervene citing neutrality or noninterference, the authors wrote, it would be equivalent to accepting “the demise of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as the highest court in the land.”

“We would least expect you to accept and admit in a written response that you are now reconciled to be the last Chief Justice of Pakistan,” they stated, urging Afridi to “defend the Supreme Court of Pakistan” at what they described as a defining moment.

Signed by prominent legal figures

The letter was written by Advocate Faisal Siddiqi and endorsed by a roster of senior legal figures, including:

• Justice (R) Mushir Alam, Former Senior Puisne Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan
• Justice (R) Nadeem Akhtar, Former Senior Puisne Judge, Sindh High Court
• Muneer A. Malik, Senior Advocate and Former Attorney General of Pakistan
• Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate and Former President, Supreme Court Bar Association
• Anwar Mansoor Khan, Senior Advocate and Former Attorney General of Pakistan
• Ali Ahmad Kurd, Former President, Supreme Court Bar Association
• Abid S. Zuberi, Senior Advocate and Former President, Supreme Court Bar Association
• Kanzra B. Amanullah, Former President, Supreme Court Bar Association
• Khawaja Ahmad Hosain, Advocate, Supreme Court of Pakistan
• Salahuddin Ahmed, Advocate, Supreme Court of Pakistan
• Shabnam Nawaz Awan, Advocate, Supreme Court of Pakistan

Transparency request

The authors urged the chief justice to publicly release the letter “in the interest of transparency.” They said a copy was shared via WhatsApp with his secretary, Muhammad Yasin, and would be delivered by courier.

Background

The amendment bill seeks sweeping judicial reforms, including the creation of a new Federal Constitutional Court. Critics argue the changes could sharply limit the Supreme Court’s authority and autonomy.

Legal experts and bar groups across the country have expressed alarm, warning that the reform effort could trigger a constitutional confrontation and fundamentally shift the balance of power among state institutions.