ISLAMABAD: Four Islamabad High Court (IHC) Judges who sought to challenge the 27th Amendment were turned away by the Supreme Court and directed to approach the newly created Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), Dawn reported on Thursday.
The Judges Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rifat Imtiaz had prepared a petition under Article 184(3) and sent it to the Supreme Court’s Registry. According to Dawn, the petition was not taken up after officials noted that Article 184(3), formerly used by the Supreme Court for enforcing fundamental rights, has now been removed from the Constitution.
Sources told Dawn that the Judges did not personally appear before the Supreme Court to file the petition or complete biometric verification. They had decided to move the Court after months of raising concerns about what they described as an “incremental but systematic dismantling” of judicial independence, starting from the 26th Amendment and leading to the latest constitutional changes.
Court officials informed the petitioners that the matter may fall outside the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction since it concerns a constitutional amendment. They advised that it might require review through mechanisms specifically meant for such challenges.
However, the petitioners insisted that only the Supreme Court could determine the legality of the amendment because the FCC’s existence “depends on the amendment being upheld,” as reported by Dawn.
Their draft petition argued that a forum created by the disputed amendment cannot “judge its own birth,” adding that the Supreme Court’s inherent authority to interpret the Constitution cannot be removed.
The draft, reviewed by Dawn, said the amendment violated Articles 9, 10A and 25, which ensure due process, fair trial and equal protection, by placing the Judiciary under Executive control. It also argued that the revisions disrupted the separation of powers and changed the service conditions of sitting Judges in breach of the Constitution.
The FCC itself is one of the main subjects of the petition. The Judges claimed that its Chief Justice was appointed by the President solely on the Prime Minister’s advice, without judicial consultation, contrary to principles set out in landmark rulings such as Al-Jehad Trust and Sharaf Faridi.
The petition also questioned the appointment of the first batch of FCC Judges, alleging they were “handpicked” by the Executive even before the amendment took effect.
According to the draft, the structure and authority of the new Court, which binds all other Courts yet is not bound by precedent, has created an unprecedented parallel judicial system. It warned that the FCC’s unrestricted ability to withdraw cases from High Courts could enable Executive interference in constitutional matters.
The petition also challenged amendments to Article 200 permitting the transfer of High Court Judges without consent, arguing that such powers expose Judges to pressure, retaliation and potential manipulation of bench composition.
Additionally, the petition raised concerns about changes to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) and the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). It noted that both bodies now include a majority of non-judicial members or Judges appointed under the contested framework.
The petitioners said the appointment process had been turned into “an election by an Executive-dominated electoral college,” replacing merit-based selection with political influence.