In a significant development that has raised concerns about judicial independence in Pakistan, the Supreme Court has effectively barred judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) from challenging the controversial 27th Constitutional Amendment. The court has directed the judges to instead approach the newly constituted Federal Shariat Court (FSC) with their grievances.
Supreme Court's Directive to High Court Judges
The Pakistan Supreme Court made this decisive ruling while hearing a petition filed by IHC judges who were seeking to challenge the constitutional amendment. The seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, declared that the high court judges had no standing to directly approach the Supreme Court on this matter.
This legal battle centers around the 27th Amendment, which fundamentally restructured the relationship between the superior judiciary and the Federal Shariat Court. The amendment significantly expanded the jurisdiction and powers of the religious court, creating concerns among mainstream judiciary members about the potential erosion of their authority.
Constitutional Implications and Judicial Hierarchy
The Supreme Court's ruling establishes a clear judicial hierarchy that requires lower court judges to exhaust all other remedies before approaching the highest court. The bench emphasized that the IHC judges should first present their case before the very institution whose powers were enhanced by the amendment - the Federal Shariat Court.
Legal experts have pointed out the unusual nature of this situation, where sitting high court judges are being compelled to approach a specialized religious court that typically deals with Islamic law matters. This development marks a significant shift in Pakistan's judicial landscape and could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between different judicial bodies.
Broader Context and International Concerns
This case emerges against the backdrop of ongoing tensions within Pakistan's judiciary. Recently, six IHC judges had written a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council alleging intelligence agencies' interference in judicial matters. The timing of this Supreme Court ruling has therefore attracted particular attention from legal observers and human rights organizations.
International legal bodies and democracy watchdogs have expressed concern about the potential impact on judicial independence in Pakistan. The directive forcing high court judges to approach the Federal Shariat Court is seen by some as potentially undermining the authority of the conventional judiciary in favor of religious courts.
The ruling also comes at a politically sensitive time for Pakistan, with the government implementing various constitutional reforms. The 27th Amendment specifically has been controversial since its inception, with critics arguing it blurs the line between civil and religious jurisprudence in the country's legal system.
As the IHC judges consider their next steps, the legal community awaits to see whether they will comply with the Supreme Court's directive and approach the Federal Shariat Court, or explore other constitutional remedies available to them. The outcome of this judicial standoff could redefine the relationship between different tiers of Pakistan's judiciary for years to come.
