Pakistan’s Controversial 26th Constitutional Amendment Sparks Political Storm Across Nation.

The 26th Constitutional Amendment seeks to introduce significant changes to Pakistan’s political and judicial framework, to address longstanding issues within the judiciary. Some of the key proposals include:

1. Judicial Appointments Commission: A new 12-member commission has been established to appoint the CJP. One of the most controversial aspects of the amendment is its alteration of the process for appointing judges. The amendment proposes to shift the power of judicial appointments from the judicial commission to a broader committee, which includes members from the executive branch. This move has raised concerns about increased political interference in judicial matters.
2. Suo Motu powers: The amendment seeks to dilute the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers, which allow it to take action on matters without a formal request from another party. This change aims to reduce what many perceive as judicial overreach.
3. Capping Tenure for Judges: The bill also proposes the introduction of fixed tenures for judges of the superior courts. This is intended to ensure that judges do not remain in office indefinitely, thus promoting accountability. However, opponents argue that fixed tenures may undermine judicial independence by making judges vulnerable to political pressures, especially if reappointment becomes a possibility.
4. Regulation of Judicial Conduct: Another major feature of the Constitutional amendment is the proposed creation of a judicial oversight committee to regulate the conduct of judges. This committee would have the authority to investigate allegations of misconduct or corruption within the judiciary. While the government claims this will promote transparency, critics argue that it could be used as a tool for political retribution against judges who make unfavorable rulings.
5. Judicial Review Powers: The amendment also seeks to limit the scope of judicial review by reducing the judiciary’s ability to overturn laws passed by the parliament. This would effectively curtail the judiciary’s power to act as a check on the executive and legislative branches, weakening the separation of powers.

Political Reactions and Debate

The 26th Constitutional Amendment has divided Pakistan’s political and legal circles. On one side, the ruling government, led by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), argues that the amendment is necessary to modernize and reform the judiciary. They claim that the current system allows for unchecked power within the judiciary, leading to inefficiencies, delayed verdicts, and instances of corruption.

Prime Minister Imran Khan has been a vocal advocate of judicial reforms, and his government believes that changes such as the ones proposed in the amendment will help restore public trust in the judicial system. According to the government, the amendment will lead to a more accountable, transparent judiciary, better equipped to serve the people.

On the other side, opposition parties, legal experts, and members of the judiciary have expressed serious concerns about the implications of the proposed changes. Many fear that by giving the executive branch a greater role in judicial appointments, the independence of the judiciary will be compromised. Judges may feel pressured to rule in favor of the government or risk being removed or denied reappointment.

Opposition parties, particularly the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), have denounced the bill as an attack on the judiciary’s autonomy and an attempt by the ruling party to consolidate power. Legal experts warn that the amendments could undermine the rule of law and erode the democratic principle of checks and balances.

Impact on Political Interference in the Judiciary

The potential for increased political interference in the judiciary is at the heart of the debate over the 26th Constitutional Amendment. If the government gains more influence over judicial appointments and oversight, critics argue that judges may lose their ability to act as impartial arbiters in cases involving the government or political figures. This could have far-reaching consequences for the country’s legal system and democracy as a whole.

One key concern is that political cases, especially those involving corruption or electoral disputes, could be influenced by political loyalties rather than legal principles. The independence of the judiciary has been a cornerstone of Pakistan’s legal system, and any perceived compromise in its neutrality could lead to a loss of public confidence in the courts.

Moreover, limiting the scope of judicial review would reduce the judiciary’s ability to act as a check on executive overreach. Historically, Pakistan’s judiciary has played a critical role in reviewing and, in some cases, nullifying laws that were seen as unconstitutional or infringing on citizens’ rights. By curbing this power, the amendment could tilt the balance of power heavily in favor of the executive, weakening the democratic system of governance.

Pakistan’s 26th Constitutional Amendment has triggered a fierce political debate, with far-reaching implications for the judiciary and the broader political system. While the government argues that the bill will promote judicial efficiency and transparency, critics see it as an attack on judicial independence and a step toward increased political interference in the courts.