Who is who on the first bench of newly formed Federal Constitutional Court?
Justice Aminuddin Khan
Justice Aminuddin Khan on Friday took oath as the first Chief Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court, before a packed hall of judges, lawyers and dignitaries in Islamabad.
Justice Aminuddin’s appointment follows the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, now part of the Constitution after President Asif Ali Zardari’s signature. The amendment reshapes the judicial structure: the sitting Chief Justice, Yahya Afridi retains the title as ‘Chief Justice of Pakistan' until completing their term, while the senior-most between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court will be recognised as Chief Justice of Pakistan later after Justice Yahya Afridi retires. It further authorises the president to appoint FCC judges on the prime minister’s advice — a move that has triggered intense debate within legal circles.
Read: President signs 27th Amendment Bill into law
Appointment of six judges for FCC
President Asif Ali Zardari has appointed six judges to the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), following the swearing-in of Justice Aminuddin Khan as its first Chief Justice earlier today.
The six appointees are Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Justice Rozi Khan Barrech, and Justice Arshad Hussain Shah.
Three of the judges — Justice Rizvi, Justice Farooq, and Justice Najafi — have taken the oath, administered by Chief Justice Aminuddin at the Islamabad High Court.
Several judges were absent from the ceremony, including Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri of the IHC, as well as Justices Ijaz Ishaq Khan, Babar Sattar, and Saman Rafat Imtiaz. Present at the ceremony were Justices Arbab Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Azam Khan, and Raja Inam Amin Minhas.
The Federal Constitutional Court represents a long-standing democratic commitment first envisioned in the 2006 Charter of Democracy, signed by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). Justice Aminuddin Khan’s nomination aligns perfectly with the CoD’s original intent. It is to create a specialised constitutional body to strengthen judicial independence and allow the Supreme Court to focus on appellate work.
As Chief Justice of the FCC, Justice Aminuddin will oversee a court of seven judges — four from the Supreme Court and two from the high courts — with a retirement age of 68, three years beyond that of the Supreme Court. The court has exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation, intergovernmental disputes, and presidential or parliamentary references, marking a structural transformation in Pakistan’s judicial landscape, one that Justice Aminuddin is uniquely positioned to lead.
Yet his nomination has sparked unease in legal circles. Critics note that Justice Aminuddin authored the ‘reserved seats ruling’ that enabled the government’s two-thirds majority, endorsed the ‘trial of civilians in military courts’, and consistently sided with the executive on judicial appointments in JCP meetings. To them, elevating the same judge to lead the country’s new apex constitutional court signals a consolidation of power at a moment when judicial independence is already under strain.
The judge whose decision in reserved seats case helped govt to get 2/3 majority in National Assembly, allowed civilians trial in military courts & supported almost every executive decision related to judges appointment during JCP meetings is being nominated as Chief Justice of… https://t.co/TJWbjfaTig
Justice Aminuddin Khan’s elevation follows a long judicial career spanning four decades. Born in Multan in 1960 to a family of lawyers, he began legal practice in 1984 under his father, Khan Sadiq Muhammad Ahsan. He was enrolled as an advocate of the Lahore High Court in 1987 and became an advocate of the Supreme Court in 2001. He was appointed to the Lahore High Court in 2011 and elevated to the Supreme Court in 2019, where he currently heads the Constitutional Bench.
Alongside the Chief Justice and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, he joined a three-judge committee under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, tasked with deciding which constitutional cases would be referred to the new bench. His inclusion underscored his growing institutional authority and trust among fellow judges.
In November 2024, following the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) voted to appoint him as Head of the newly constituted seven-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. The decision, passed by a narrow seven-to-five majority, placed Justice Aminuddin at the helm of a bench with exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation, marking a major shift in Pakistan’s judicial power dynamics.
Among his notable contributions is his dissenting opinion in the July 12 reserved seats case. He was also a member of the nine-judge bench that examined the presidential reference concerning the hanging of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Throughout his career, Justice Aminuddin has authored several rulings in civil and constitutional law. As head of the Constitutional Bench, he has overseen cases related to constitutional interpretation and judicial review, contributing to the legal framework that underpins the FCC. The FCC, created under the 27th Constitutional Amendment, has exclusive authority over constitutional interpretation, federal–provincial disputes, and questions referred by the President or Parliament. Justice Aminuddin has been appointed as its first Chief Justice shortly before his Supreme Court retirement, leading the court from its inception.
Reserved Seats
The reserved seats case concerned allocation of parliamentary seats for women and minorities following the February 2024 general elections. The main issue was whether PTI candidates, contesting as independents after losing their party symbol and aligning with the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), were eligible. The case had significant political implications, potentially affecting the ruling coalition’s majority in the National Assembly.
Read More: ‘PTI was not a party in reserved seats case’: SC judges issue dissenting opinion
The initial 13-member Supreme Court bench, headed by then-CJP Qazi Faez Isa, ruled PTI eligible for the reserved seats, overturning earlier Election Commission and Peshawar High Court decisions. Justice Aminuddin, with Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, dissented, noting PTI was not a party to the case and granting relief would exceed the court’s constitutional jurisdiction. He argued that PTI was not a party before the ECP or High Court, emphasising that decisions not aligned with the Constitution cannot bind constitutional institutions, and PTI’s claim through SIC was procedurally invalid.
In June 2025, the Constitutional Bench led by Justice Aminuddin reviewed the case. On June 29, 2025, it set aside the July 12, 2024 decision, declaring PTI ineligible for reserved seats and restoring the Peshawar High Court’s original ruling, which had dismissed PTI’s claim as SIC had not participated in the elections. Seven judges fully supported review petitions filed by the Election Commission, PML-N, and others, while three partially allowed them. Dissenting opinions from Justices Ayesha Malik and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi were considered. The judgment clarified that PTI candidates who had joined SIC could face disqualification under Article 63A if they rejoined PTI. Reserved seats under Articles 51 and 106, and the Elections Act, were confirmed to go to coalition parties.
The verdict was a major setback for PTI, confirming its ineligibility for reserved seats in national and provincial assemblies. It reinforced the Election Commission’s role and adherence to constitutional procedure. Justice Aminuddin’s dissent in the initial ruling highlighted his focus on constitutional compliance and procedural correctness.
Military Courts
The case examined the constitutionality of trying civilians under military courts, including the May 9, 2023 unrest and the 2009 GHQ attack. Petitioners argued such trials violated constitutional guarantees, including Article 10A on fair trial, and challenged earlier Supreme Court rulings.
A Constitutional Bench led by Justice Aminuddin, in a 5-2 majority on September 23, 2025, held civilian trials under the Army Act ‘constitutional’ if conducted within statutory limits and procedural safeguards. Justice Aminuddin wrote that military tribunals provide rights to counsel, cross-examination, and appellate review under section 133-B, emphasising that fairness does not require military courts to mirror civilian courts.
The judgment clarified that military trials comply with minimum standards of fairness and due process when statutory procedures are followed. Military courts do not replace civilian courts but operate in a defined legal space related to national defence and operational needs. The bench noted the absence of independent appellate review in civilian courts as a procedural gap, urging Parliament to legislate for High Court appeals. Prior rulings striking down such trials were rejected, with the court emphasising constitutional restraint.
Also Read: Army says 'no compromise' with May 9 planners, executors
Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan dissented, arguing civilian trials in military courts violate fair trial standards and the principle of separation of powers.
During proceedings, the bench reviewed historical cases, including the 2009 GHQ attack, and noted military courts are specialised statutory forums, not part of the ordinary judiciary. The judgment also addressed concerns about impartiality and scope of military jurisdiction, clarifying that military courts operate under statutory authority within operational exigencies.
The verdict affirmed the legality of civilian trials under the Army Act while recommending legislative reforms to provide independent appellate rights in High Courts. Justice Aminuddin’s judgment defined the scope of military jurisdiction over civilians and established procedural safeguards, balancing operational requirements with constitutional principles.