Pakistan’s political and judicial landscape has been thrown into turmoil after two senior Supreme Court judges — Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah — resigned from their posts in protest against the recently passed 27th Constitutional Amendment. The sudden resignations have sparked widespread debate across the country, with many describing the development as a defining moment for Pakistan’s judicial independence and constitutional integrity.
The amendment, approved by Parliament with a two-thirds majority amid uproar from opposition benches, has dramatically restructured the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary. It establishes a new body called the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), which will now serve as the final authority on constitutional interpretation. This effectively places the Supreme Court in a secondary position — a move that many within the legal community are calling unprecedented and alarming.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, in his resignation letter addressed to the President of Pakistan, called the new amendment a direct assault on the Constitution and judicial independence. He wrote that he could no longer serve under a system where “the Constitution is subordinate to the will of the executive.” He reminded that his oath was to defend the Constitution, not to obey legislative convenience. Known for his progressive rulings and reformist approach, Justice Shah lamented that the judiciary was being transformed into a rubber stamp rather than a guardian of citizens’ rights.
Justice Athar Minallah, who resigned shortly after, expressed deep concern over what he termed “a disfiguring of the constitutional order.” His statement, though brief, carried a powerful message — that a judge’s loyalty lies with the Constitution, not with those who wield temporary power. Observers have noted that both judges were among the few within the Supreme Court who had openly questioned the growing interference of political and non-political actors in judicial matters. Their simultaneous resignations have now intensified fears that the judiciary is losing its independence at an alarming rate.
The new legislation has also redefined the role of Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, who retains the title of Chief Justice of Pakistan but with curtailed authority. The amendment grants the newly formed Federal Constitutional Court the power to overrule the Supreme Court on matters involving constitutional interpretation. Critics argue that this has reduced the position of Chief Justice to a ceremonial role. Legal scholars and constitutional experts, including Faisal Siddiqi and Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed, have condemned the amendment as person-specific and politically motivated. They argue that one section of the law appears designed specifically to benefit Chief Justice Afridi while stripping the judiciary of collective power.
Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed described the amendment as a troubling reminder of Pakistan’s past experiments with constitutional manipulation. He said that such person-specific legislation is bound to “end up in the dustbin of history,” recalling previous attempts to alter the Constitution for temporary political convenience. Faisal Siddiqi also noted that while the law grants limited advantages to the current judiciary, it provides broader immunity for political and military officeholders — a clause that, according to him, exposes the political intent behind the entire move.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, reacting to the passage of the amendment, thanked Chief Justice Yahya Afridi for what he called “cooperation in strengthening the constitutional framework.” Government officials defended the move as a long-overdue structural reform aimed at reducing case backlogs and depoliticizing judicial decision-making. However, this justification has found little support among legal circles. The Pakistan Bar Council and the Supreme Court Bar Association have both rejected the amendment, calling it unconstitutional and a violation of judicial autonomy.
Former Attorney General of Pakistan and several senior advocates have compared the 27th Amendment to the 8th Constitutional Amendment introduced during General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime, which centralized executive power at the cost of constitutional freedom. Advocates have also pointed out that this amendment, much like its predecessor, creates confusion about separation of powers and weakens the democratic structure that ensures judicial checks on the government.
Public reactions have been equally strong. Social media platforms and legal forums have been flooded with discussions about what this means for Pakistan’s future. Many believe that the resignations of two respected justices reflect a deeper crisis of confidence within the judiciary itself. Lawyers’ groups have called for a nationwide protest, demanding that the government withdraw the amendment and restore the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court.
Behind the scenes, retired judges and legal academics say this crisis represents more than a clash of legal opinions — it marks a defining battle for Pakistan’s democratic identity. The judiciary has historically served as both a check and a victim of political interference. With the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court, that delicate balance appears to have tilted decisively toward the executive branch.
For now, the resignations of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah stand as symbols of defiance in an increasingly compromised system. Whether their act of protest will spark a larger judicial movement or fade into history remains to be seen, but it has undoubtedly opened one of the most critical chapters in Pakistan’s constitutional evolution — one that could determine the future shape of the country’s justice system.