LAHORE: Lawyers and legal experts scrutinized the recently passed 27th Amendment to the Constitution in a session titled The State of Constitution: the 27th Amendment on the final day of Afkar-e-Taza ThinkFest. The panel discussed its objectives, implications, and potential impact on judicial independence and parliamentary supremacy.
Read More: Lawyers warn 27th Amendment threatens judicial independence in Pakistan
Lawyer Asad Rahim Khan said the 27th Amendment should be seen in context with the 26th Amendment, which he said had already altered the judicial appointment process. He explained that the new amendment assigns constitutional cases—including basic rights, voting, and freedom of movement—to a federal constitutional court whose judges are appointed by the executive, while appellate courts are limited to family and rent cases. He questioned the criteria of expertise and seniority in selecting judges for the new court.
Full house for the panel on 27th amendment at #Thinkfest2026 @Noorzraja @AsadRahim @laalshah @reema_omer @Jaferii @salmanAraja pic.twitter.com/c4ck9MPxyM
— ThinkFest Pakistan (@ThinkFestPK) January 25, 2026
Khan and other panelists argued that the amendment undermines the authority of the Supreme Court, as decisions of the constitutional court are binding on all courts but not vice versa. They noted that the amendment’s stated objectives—reducing case backlogs, preserving seniority, and ensuring constitutional expertise—may not align with its actual effects.
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jafri described the amendment as an attempt to capture judicial power and subjugate the democratic process. Reema Omer linked the move to the “revolutionary legality” principle of Austrian jurist Hans Kelsen, arguing that the constitutional court was positioned as a check on parliament rather than a promoter of parliamentary supremacy.
Irfan Qadir offered a contrasting perspective, suggesting the judiciary had overstepped and that the amendment was intended to rein in judicial excess. Salman Akram Raja focused on the amendment’s political motivations, citing disputes over reserved seats, military courts, and elections as driving forces behind the change.
Read More: Lawyers rally in Lahore against 27th Amendment, vow weekly protests
The session concluded with widespread concern among legal experts that the 27th Amendment could concentrate judicial authority in ways that may weaken democratic checks and balances and alter the relationship between the judiciary, executive, and legislature.