The 27th Amendment marks a historic transformation in Pakistan’s judicial architecture, formally establishing a dual-apex court system by creating the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) alongside the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
This amendment fundamentally reshapes the distribution of constitutional and ordinary judicial powers, offering greater specialisation, clarity and efficiency in adjudication. Experts in constitutional law highlight that these changes represent a forward-looking evolution in Pakistan’s constitutional experience.
By inserting Articles 175A to 175D and amending Articles 175 and 176, the constitution has formally recognised the FCC as a constitutional court alongside the Supreme Court and high courts. Article 175(1) explicitly acknowledges the FCC’s status, while Article 176 continues to define the composition and functioning of the Supreme Court. These amendments ensure that constitutional adjudication is centralised in a specialised forum, separating it from the Supreme Court’s traditional appellate and civil-criminal jurisdiction. This distinction addresses practical challenges arising from increased constitutional litigation, decision-making delays and overlapping judicial authority.
A key feature of the 27th Amendment is the transfer of original jurisdiction concerning fundamental rights from the Supreme Court to the FCC. Previously, the Supreme Court exercised this authority under Article 184(3). The substituted Article 184, read with Articles 8 to 28, now empowers the FCC to hear cases of public importance involving the enforcement of fundamental rights. By centralising such jurisdiction within the FCC, the constitution has ensured uniform interpretation of fundamental rights and allowed the Supreme Court to focus on appellate civil and criminal matters without being encumbered by constitutional enforcement cases.
Similarly, the amendment has reassigned advisory jurisdiction. Under the revised Article 186(1), questions of law of public importance referred by the president for advisory opinion are now to be addressed by the FCC rather than the Supreme Court. This consolidation strengthens constitutional interpretation and centralises advisory responsibilities, preventing overlapping opinions and ensuring consistent guidance on matters of national significance.
Another notable innovation is the FCC’s power to call cases pending before any court under Chapter 2-A and amended Article 187. The FCC may assume jurisdiction over any case involving a substantial question of constitutional interpretation and decide it directly. This authority extends across all courts, including high courts and the Supreme Court, ensuring uniformity in constitutional adjudication and reducing delays caused by fragmented proceedings.
The FCC now holds exclusive authority to declare laws, executive actions, or subordinate legislation intra vires or ultra vires the constitution. Articles 8(1) and 199(1)(c), read with the substituted jurisdictional provisions, provide the FCC with the final say on constitutional validity. This ensures that the constitution remains the supreme law, with the FCC serving as the definitive interpreter of constitutional norms nationwide. Decisions of the FCC under amended Article 189 are binding on all courts, including the Supreme Court, thereby creating a clear, hierarchical structure for constitutional matters.
Despite these changes, the Supreme Court retains critical jurisdiction under Articles 185 and 187. The SC continues as the highest appellate forum in civil and criminal matters, exercising appellate authority over high courts and other subordinate courts. It also retains the power to issue necessary orders to ensure complete justice in ordinary civil and criminal disputes. While the SC no longer exercises original jurisdiction over fundamental rights enforcement or advisory opinions, its role in the regular justice system remains indispensable. This ensures a balance between specialised constitutional adjudication and the ordinary appellate system, with both courts complementing each other’s functions.
The establishment of two apex courts introduces new professional responsibilities for lawyers. Legal practitioners appearing before both the FCC and the SC must maintain impartiality and diligence, ensuring that advocacy respects the independence and authority of each court. Observations or preferences suggesting that a case should be presented first before one court or the other can create professional and institutional challenges. It is therefore essential for both courts to understand this dynamic and maintain a neutral, coordinated approach toward lawyers and court appearances.
Essentially, the 27th Amendment represents a progressive and positive step in Pakistan’s judicial evolution. The FCC has emerged as the specialised apex forum for constitutional adjudication, while the Supreme Court will continue to serve as the highest appellate court in civil and criminal matters. This dual-apex structure provides institutional clarity, enhances judicial specialisation and promotes expeditious resolution of cases. By adhering to constitutional boundaries, both courts can operate harmoniously, strengthen public confidence in the judiciary and ensure the effective protection of constitutional rights.
This reform ushers in a new constitutional experience for Pakistan, encouraging professionalism, judicial discipline and efficiency, while safeguarding the integrity, authority and dignity of the superior judiciary. Lawyers, judges and citizens alike benefit from the clarity, specialisation and hierarchy introduced by the amendment, marking a milestone in Pakistan’s constitutional and judicial history.
The writer is a practising advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan with 25 years of legal standing. He can be reached at: [email protected]
