The recent passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment into law has sparked significant debate within the country. The amendment, passed with a two-thirds majority, has been heavily criticised on its effects on the democratic processes, particularly in relation to the judiciary and legislative branches.
One of the key provisions of the amendment concerns the extension of terms for Supreme Court judges. Critics allege that the changes undermine judicial independence. They argue that the amendment could give the government undue influence over judicial appointments and term extensions. PTI leaders have also voiced concerns that the bill was passed under pressure, with some of their lawmakers being allegedly coerced or absent during the vote. Proponents of the amendment, including the government, have defended it as a continuation of the Charter of Democracy, a political agreement from 2006 aimed at promoting democratic norms and curbing the influence of unelected institutions like the judiciary and military in Pakistan’s governance. Federal ministers have argued that the amendment is essential to restoring parliamentary dignity and ensuring that institutions like the judiciary do not overstep their mandates.
Despite these reassurances, the amendment’s critics remain vocal, and rightfully so. The debates surrounding this amendment reflect broader concerns about the balance of power between Pakistan’s judiciary and its elected government — an issue that has long been contentious.
Asif Afnan
Lahore
