A Critical Analysis of Judicial Structure of Pakistan’s Apex Court: Pre- and Post-26th Constitutional Amendment

Since Pakistan’s independence in 1947, the Supreme Court has undergone significant constitutional transformations, shaped by numerous amendments aimed at realizing the true spirit of the Constitution and the will of the state. The Constitution of 1973 established core objectives of constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, judicial autonomy, and the protection of fundamental rights. Within this framework, the 26th Constitutional Amendment stands as a landmark reform with profound implications for the judiciary’s structure and role. This study critically analyzes the procedural, structural, and functional impacts of the amendment. Key changes include fixing the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s tenure at three years, restructuring the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and the Parliamentary Committee, and introducing controversial grounds for the removal of the Chief Justice. Proponents argue these reforms enhance transparency, democratize judicial governance, and limit the concentration of authority. Critics, however, contend that they erode judicial independence, politicize appointments, and dilute the principle of separation of powers. Employing doctrinal and comparative methodology, this research evaluates the amendment through the lenses of separation of powers, rule of law, and judicial independence, drawing parallels with similar reforms in Hungary and Poland. Findings suggest that while the amendment may increase parliamentary oversight and accountability, it simultaneously risks political manipulation and undermines judicial impartiality. Notably, curtailing the Supreme Court’s Suo-Motu powers under Article 184(3), once a vital tool to protect fundamental rights, further complicates the balance between judicial activism and legislative authority. The study concludes that reforms must be guided by principles of merit-based appointments, financial autonomy, and transparent removal mechanisms. Without such safeguards, the 26th Amendment threatens to reverse decades of progress in strengthening judicial independence. This research contributes to constitutional scholarship by underscoring the urgent need for reforms that reinforce, rather than compromise, Pakistan’s democratic governance and judicial credibility.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International journal of advanced social studies.
Published
2025-08-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.70843/ijass.2025.05204
Primary Topic
Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Critical Analysis of Judicial Structure of Pakistan’s Apex Court: Pre- and Post-26th Constitutional Amendment

Manual Selvaraj Bexci, Haq Nawaz
International journal of advanced social studies.
Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
article

A Critical Analysis of Judicial Structure of Pakistan’s Apex Court: Pre- and Post-26th Constitutional Amendment

Manual Selvaraj Bexci, Haq Nawaz
article en

Abstract

Since Pakistan’s independence in 1947, the Supreme Court has undergone significant constitutional transformations, shaped by numerous amendments aimed at realizing the true spirit of the Constitution and the will of the state. The Constitution of 1973 established core objectives of constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, judicial autonomy, and the protection of fundamental rights. Within this framework, the 26th Constitutional Amendment stands as a landmark reform with profound implications for the judiciary’s structure and role. This study critically analyzes the procedural, structural, and functional impacts of the amendment. Key changes include fixing the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s tenure at three years, restructuring the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and the Parliamentary Committee, and introducing controversial grounds for the removal of the Chief Justice. Proponents argue these reforms enhance transparency, democratize judicial governance, and limit the concentration of authority. Critics, however, contend that they erode judicial independence, politicize appointments, and dilute the principle of separation of powers. Employing doctrinal and comparative methodology, this research evaluates the amendment through the lenses of separation of powers, rule of law, and judicial independence, drawing parallels with similar reforms in Hungary and Poland. Findings suggest that while the amendment may increase parliamentary oversight and accountability, it simultaneously risks political manipulation and undermines judicial impartiality. Notably, curtailing the Supreme Court’s Suo-Motu powers under Article 184(3), once a vital tool to protect fundamental rights, further complicates the balance between judicial activism and legislative authority. The study concludes that reforms must be guided by principles of merit-based appointments, financial autonomy, and transparent removal mechanisms. Without such safeguards, the 26th Amendment threatens to reverse decades of progress in strengthening judicial independence. This research contributes to constitutional scholarship by underscoring the urgent need for reforms that reinforce, rather than compromise, Pakistan’s democratic governance and judicial credibility.

International journal of advanced social studies.Vol. 5(2)
Lincoln University College (MY)
Openalex Percentile: Top 68%
Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.