The Supreme Court blocked a petition by four IHC judges who challenged the 27th Amendment. The registry said the old jurisdiction no longer applies. It advised the judges to use the new Federal Constitutional Court. This decision surprised many because the petition questions that court’s creation. The move raised fresh concerns about judicial independence and constitutional stability.
The judges filed their plea under Article 184(3). However, officials refused to accept it under current rules. They also noted missing requirements, including biometric verification. The rejection created confusion about the correct legal route. It also deepened tensions between the judiciary and the executive.
READ MORE:Judicial bodies reconstituted following 27th Amendment
The draft petition said the 27th Amendment violated due process and fair trial rights. It argued that the amendment increased executive influence over courts. The judges claimed that only the Supreme Court can rule on such constitutional issues. They insisted the new system weakens established judicial safeguards.
The petition also questioned how judges were appointed to the Federal Constitutional Court. It claimed the process lacked transparency and judicial input. It warned that the new court can pull major cases from high courts. This power, it said, could allow the executive to shape key constitutional decisions.
READ MORE:27th Constitutional Amendment — A Guarantee for National Progress
The judges challenged other changes, including new rules for the Judicial Commission and judge transfers. They said these reforms undermine independence and judicial security. They urged the Supreme Court to review the 27th Amendment to protect constitutional balance. The controversy is expected to continue as debate grows around the 27th Amendment.