• Justice Jawwad asks top court to set aside 27th Amendment
• Argues certain constitutional commands can’t be altered in a way that destroys their essence
ISLAMABAD: Former chief justice Jawwad S. Khawaja on Tuesday challenged the 27th Amendment, seeking a direction that the Supreme Court (SC) retains exclusive jurisdiction to determine the lawfulness and constitutionality of the proposed amendment.
Filed through Advocate Khwaja Ahmad Hosain, the petitioner pleaded before the apex court to strike down or suspend any provisions in any Act of Parliament, including the 27th Amendment, which reduce or abolish any constitutional jurisdiction of the SC or which purport to vest any such jurisdiction in any other court or body.
The petition also requested the apex court to set aside provisions of the 27th Amendment, which relate to transfer of high court judges with a request that until a final decision of this petition and as a matter of urgency.
The ex-CJ explained that he has filed the petition to save the SC that he claimed was on the verge of being abolished as a constitutional court. By the time of hearing of this petition, the petition argued, the Constitution might have already been amended in a manner that purports to take away SC’s constitutional jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding the terms of such amendment, it is the petitioner’s case that the country’s top court must hear this petition immediately, as at the date of filing of this petition, the apex court exists as a constitutional court.
The petition seeks to enforce the command of the Constitution, which stipulates that “the independence of the judiciary shall be fully secured”. The petition contended the question before this court was whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the apex court could be abolished.
The ex-CJ argued that he had “no personal interest” in this case, adding the relief sought was for the benefit of all citizens of Pakistan.
“This petition and any adjudication will have an immediate impact on the fundamental rights of citizens,” he stated, adding that if SC’s constitutional jurisdiction was abolished, the people would be deprived of an independent apex forum to approach for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Cornerstone of Constitution
According to the petitioner, the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as an independent apex judicial body was a cornerstone of the 1973 Constitution. Any attempt to abolish, diminish, or subordinate the apex court undermines the very architecture of the constitutional order and is inconsistent with the will of the people as expressed in the 1973 Constitution, he argued.
According to him, the independence and jurisdiction of the SC are constitutional commands and the parliamentarians act as fiduciaries of the people and cannot go against these constitutional commands as set out in the preamble of the Constitution.
He was of the opinion that even a constitutional amendment could not abrogate SC’s constitutional jurisdiction. Therefore, any attempt to abolish or undermine the SC’s constitutional authority would violate the foundational principles of Constitution and threaten the continuity of the constitutional order itself, he added.
The framers of the Constitution intentionally enshrined SC’s authority in a manner that underscored its independence and centrality to the constitutional system, he said. Its powers and jurisdiction were constitutional imperatives integral to the Constitution, according to the former chief justice.
The petitioner argued that the SC had already recognised that certain constitutional commands set out by the people, including judicial independence, could not be altered in a way that destroyed their essence.
Published in Dawn, November 12th, 2025
from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/Q9Y3lfK
0 Comments