The 27th Amendment: Reform or Re-Engineering of the Republic?

It began with chaos — senators allegedly abducted, parliamentarians dragged out from within the very premises of Parliament, and a sudden rush of votes that few could clearly explain. Out of that confusion now emerges Pakistan’s next major constitutional experiment: the proposed 27th Amendment.

Supporters hail it as a long-overdue step toward judicial reform and constitutional clarity. Critics see something else — a continuation of the quiet restructuring of the state that began months before the amendment was even drafted.

A trail that started before the vote

The roots of the 27th Amendment lie in the 26th. The previous amendment had already redrawn the map of judicial authority. It came on the heels of a string of controversial Supreme Court rulings under former chief justice Qazi Faez Isa — from the bat election symbol case in January 2024, to verdicts on reserved seats that shifted parliamentary arithmetic in subtle but decisive ways.

These judicial interventions, whether read as reformist or reactive, reshaped the political landscape and paved the way for constitutional changes that soon followed. When the 26th Amendment was passed, it not only expanded executive influence over the judiciary but also allowed the continuation of the Chief Election Commissioner whose tenure had ended, something impossible before the amendment. Critics called it “institutional insurance” for an election already clouded by allegations of management and manipulation.

What the 27th Amendment adds

The new proposal goes further. It envisions the creation of a Constitutional Court dedicated to interpreting constitutional issues, ostensibly to reduce case backlogs and provide clarity on state matters. It also seeks to formalize the armed forces’ chain of command and re-federalize subjects like health, education, and population — areas devolved to the provinces under the 18th Amendment.

This shift has triggered alarm bells in provinces with concern that changes to the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award might weaken fiscal autonomy and make provinces more dependent on the centre.

Power, not process

Behind these reforms lies a more political story. The 26th Amendment had already increased executive say in how Supreme Court benches were constituted. In the months after, judges’ transfers became contentious — most notably when Justice Sarfraz Dogar, who ranked outside the top ten in the Lahore High Court, was transferred to become Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court. That transfer, widely viewed as political, is now effectively constitutionalized under the 27th.

These moves are defended as “structural corrections” to ensure efficiency, yet they increasingly look like a slow centralization of judicial power — away from seniority and toward discretion.

A divided judiciary

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, a senior puisne judge who would have been next in line for Chief Justice had the 26th Amendment not altered succession, recently voiced a rare and pointed critique. “If the constitutional bench itself becomes constitutionalized, then what are we — unconstitutional?” he asked during proceedings, questioning whether regular benches could even decide constitutional cases in the future, as quoted by The Express Tribune.

His remarks capture the unease within the Supreme Court itself — a growing discomfort over what kind of judiciary these amendments are producing: one independent of politics, or one reorganized to accommodate it.

A parliament under question

Outside the courts, another debate brews. Public sentiment online reflects deep skepticism over whether this Parliament, elected through a highly disputed vote, has the moral legitimacy to rewrite the Constitution so frequently and so fundamentally. Achieving a two-thirds majority, unthinkable for nearly two decades, now seems effortless. That sudden legislative cohesion, critics say, raises its own questions: is consensus genuine, or engineered?

The symbolism matters. Every amendment passed by a contested legislature deepens public doubt in the very text it produces. If the Constitution becomes a tool of convenience, its authority erodes even when the letter of law remains intact.

And the citizen still waits

For the ordinary citizen, however, the debate feels far removed from daily life. The 27th Amendment speaks of “efficiency” and “clarity,” but the larger question remains: efficiency for whom? Will it help the widow fighting an inheritance case for decades, or the under-trial prisoner awaiting judgment for a minor offence?

If constitutional reform only accelerates cases involving power, privilege, or political intrigue, it risks reinforcing the same hierarchy it claims to dismantle. True reform would start with the courts that serve the powerless and marginalized, not just the powerful.

The unfinished promise of justice

Pakistan has amended its Constitution more than two dozen times in 50 years, each time promising balance and reform. Yet, justice for the common man remains slow, opaque, and distant. The 27th Amendment may well pass and even improve certain institutional mechanisms. But unless its spirit reaches the lower courts and ordinary litigants, it will remain what too many amendments before it became — an adjustment of elite power, not a correction of systemic failure.