Abstract
The 26th Constitutional Amendment to Pakistan's Constitution, enacted on October 21, 2024, represents a pivotal reform in the country's judicial framework. Aimed at addressing perceived inefficiencies and overreach in the judiciary, the amendment introduces changes such as parliamentary involvement in appointing the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), the establishment of constitutional benches, a fixed three-year tenure for the CJP, and alterations to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). Proponents argue that these measures enhance judicial accountability, streamline case handling, and prevent arbitrary judicial activism that has historically destabilized governments. However, critics contend that it undermines judicial independence by increasing political influence over appointments and administration, potentially eroding the separation of powers and compromising the rule of law. This article explores the amendment's historical context, rooted in Pakistan's turbulent judicial-executive relations, and examines its dual impact: strengthening aspects like efficiency and accountability while posing challenges such as politicization and reduced public trust. Drawing on recent developments as of August 2025, including ongoing Supreme Court rifts and petitions challenging the amendment, it offers recommendations for safeguarding judicial autonomy and concludes with reflections on its long-term implications for Pakistan's democracy. The analysis highlights the need for balanced reforms to ensure the judiciary serves as an impartial guardian of constitutional rights amid persistent institutional tensions.
Keywords: Constitutional Amendment, Judicial Activism, Separation of powers, Rule of Law, Constitutional Rights, Judicial Autonomy
1. Introduction
The Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 20241, marks a significant overhaul of Pakistan's judicial system, amending key articles of the 1973 Constitution to revamp the appointment processes, administrative structures, and operational mechanisms of the higher judiciary. Passed amid fierce political debate and controversy, the amendment received presidential assent on October 21, 2024, with a two-thirds majority, following its approval by both houses of Pakistan's Parliament, the National Assembly and the Senate. Comprising 27 clauses, it introduces ameliorate that touch on judicial appointments, the creation of specialized benches, and enhanced oversight mechanisms, ostensibly to improve competence and curb judicial overreach.
The 26th Constitutional Amendment to Pakistan's Constitution, enacted on October 21, 2024, represents a pivotal reform in the country's judicial framework. Aimed at addressing perceived inefficiencies and overreach in the judiciary, the amendment introduces changes such as parliamentary involvement in appointing the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), the establishment of constitutional benches, a fixed three-year tenure for the CJP, and alterations to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). Proponents argue that these measures enhance judicial accountability, streamline case handling, and prevent arbitrary judicial activism that has historically destabilized governments. However, critics contend that it undermines judicial independence by increasing political influence over appointments and administration, potentially eroding the separation of powers and compromising the rule of law. This article explores the amendment's historical context, rooted in Pakistan's turbulent judicial-executive relations, and examines its dual impact: strengthening aspects like efficiency and accountability while posing challenges such as politicization and reduced public trust. Drawing on recent developments as of August 2025, including ongoing Supreme Court rifts and petitions challenging the amendment, it offers recommendations for safeguarding judicial autonomy and concludes with reflections on its long-term implications for Pakistan's democracy. The analysis highlights the need for balanced reforms to ensure the judiciary serves as an impartial guardian of constitutional rights amid persistent institutional tensions.
Keywords: Constitutional Amendment, Judicial Activism, Separation of powers, Rule of Law, Constitutional Rights, Judicial Autonomy
1. Introduction
The Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 20241, marks a significant overhaul of Pakistan's judicial system, amending key articles of the 1973 Constitution to revamp the appointment processes, administrative structures, and operational mechanisms of the higher judiciary. Passed amid fierce political debate and controversy, the amendment received presidential assent on October 21, 2024, with a two-thirds majority, following its approval by both houses of Pakistan's Parliament, the National Assembly and the Senate. Comprising 27 clauses, it introduces ameliorate that touch on judicial appointments, the creation of specialized benches, and enhanced oversight mechanisms, ostensibly to improve competence and curb judicial overreach.
“The 26th Amendment was introduced with the stated aim of strengthening accountability & transparency in judicial appointments, makes the judiciary more answerable to the democratic will of the people, rather than operating in insolation and to prevent concentration of unchecked powers within the judiciary.”2
The 26th Amendment revises Article 175A, enlightening the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to include four members each from the National Assembly and Senate, streaming influence toward parliament. The Chief Justice is no longer automatically the senior most judge; in lieu, a 12-member committee selects one from the three most senior justices, requiring a two-thirds majority and executive approval. The CJP’s tenure is camouflaged at three years. The amendment also mandates constitutional benches for cases on constitutional interpretation and human rights, empowers the Supreme Court to deportation cases between high courts, and introduces performance reviews for judges. Passed in an overnight session (Oct 20-21, 2024) under PM Shahbaz Sharif’s amalgam, the amendment drew strong opposition from PTI, which castigate it as coercive and corrupt. The ICJ condemned it as a “blow to judicial independence.” By 2025, divisions in the Supreme Court surfaced, with justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar criticizing the CJP’s handling of challenges. Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, appointed under the new system, faced backlash for delaying hearings and resisting full-court review.
Supporters, mainly PML-N and PPP, defend the amendment as curbing judicial overreach and enhancing merit-based processes. Up to now, by mid-2025, petitions remain pending, and national debate is polarized. Critics, led by Imran Khan, brand the judiciary “subservient,” raising skepticism about whether the amendment strengthens or weakens Pakistan’s judicial independence.
2. Historical background
Pakistan’s judiciary has long dangle between legitimizing authoritarian rule and defending democracy. The 26th Amendment emerges from this history of compromised judicial independence under executive and military influence. The 1973 Constitution envisioned judicial autonomy under Article 175, yet early cases, notably Molvi Tamizuddin Khan3 (1955), rooted the “doctrine of necessity.” This doctrine repeatedly validated Ayub Khan (1958) and Zia-ul-Haq (1977) cementing judicial subservience. Zia deepened control through the 1981 PCO4, forcing judges to swear allegiance and purging dissenters.
The 26th Amendment revises Article 175A, enlightening the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to include four members each from the National Assembly and Senate, streaming influence toward parliament. The Chief Justice is no longer automatically the senior most judge; in lieu, a 12-member committee selects one from the three most senior justices, requiring a two-thirds majority and executive approval. The CJP’s tenure is camouflaged at three years. The amendment also mandates constitutional benches for cases on constitutional interpretation and human rights, empowers the Supreme Court to deportation cases between high courts, and introduces performance reviews for judges. Passed in an overnight session (Oct 20-21, 2024) under PM Shahbaz Sharif’s amalgam, the amendment drew strong opposition from PTI, which castigate it as coercive and corrupt. The ICJ condemned it as a “blow to judicial independence.” By 2025, divisions in the Supreme Court surfaced, with justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar criticizing the CJP’s handling of challenges. Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, appointed under the new system, faced backlash for delaying hearings and resisting full-court review.
Supporters, mainly PML-N and PPP, defend the amendment as curbing judicial overreach and enhancing merit-based processes. Up to now, by mid-2025, petitions remain pending, and national debate is polarized. Critics, led by Imran Khan, brand the judiciary “subservient,” raising skepticism about whether the amendment strengthens or weakens Pakistan’s judicial independence.
2. Historical background
Pakistan’s judiciary has long dangle between legitimizing authoritarian rule and defending democracy. The 26th Amendment emerges from this history of compromised judicial independence under executive and military influence. The 1973 Constitution envisioned judicial autonomy under Article 175, yet early cases, notably Molvi Tamizuddin Khan3 (1955), rooted the “doctrine of necessity.” This doctrine repeatedly validated Ayub Khan (1958) and Zia-ul-Haq (1977) cementing judicial subservience. Zia deepened control through the 1981 PCO4, forcing judges to swear allegiance and purging dissenters.
Later decades brought clashes with civilian leaders such as the 1997 Supreme Court storming, Musharraf’s 1999 coup validation, and the 2007 Lawyers’ Movement, which results in restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in 2009. Judicial reforms which followed the 18th Amendment (2010) created the JCP and limiting executive dominance.
Judicial activism continued with Gilani’s disqualification (2012) and Nawaz Sharif’s ouster (2017), often seen as aligned with military interests. Tensions continue under Imran Khan (2018–2022). By 2024, amid political turbulence, the coalition government viewed the judiciary under CJP Qazi Faiz Isa as hostile, pushing the 26th Amendment in a rushed parliamentary session despite opposition protests.
By August 2025, the amendment has deepened impacts within the Supreme Court, with judges warning it undermines collegiality. This reflects Pakistan’s recurring pattern like constitutional reforms born of crisis, restoring executive dominance and oscillating between strengthening democracy.
3. The role of 26th amendment in fortifying judicial independence
Regardless of widespread criticism, the 26th Amendment introduces mechanisms that proponents claim bolster accountability, the judiciary's efficiency and focus on constitutional matters and addressing longstanding issues like case backlogs and arbitrary decision-making.
One key strengthening aspect is the establishment of constitutional benches under amended Article 191A. These kind of specialized panels, comprising at least five Supreme Court judges selected by the JCP, are tasked exclusively with constitutional, public importance and human rights cases. This apartheid aims to expedite ordinary litigation in regular benches, reducing the Supreme Court's backlog of over 50,000 cases as of 2024. By 2025, early implementations have shown promise, with constitutional benches handling high profile matters more systematically which results in potentially enhancing judicial output and public access to justice.
The fixed three year tenure for the CJP under Article 179 promotes stability and prevents indefinite holds on power, allowing for periodic leadership renewal and reducing risks of entrenched biases. Enthusiast argue this curbs "judicial monarchism," where long-serving CJPs exert unchecked influence, as seen in past eras. The nomination process from the top three seniors propose merit based evaluation, potentially elevating competent judges over mere seniority, fostering a more professional judiciary. Amendments to Article 184(3) of Constitution limit Suo Motu powers to constitutional benches which preventing individual judges from initiating politically charged cases which have historically led to instability. This is viewed as strengthening institutional integrity by emphasizing collective decision making. The JCP's enhanced role in performance evaluations of high court judges under Article 209 enhances accountability, allowing for removal of underperforming or corrupt jurists, a step toward internal cleansing.
In 2025, amid economic pressures, these reforms are credited with refocusing the judiciary on core functions, as noted in ThinkFest discussions. Overall, the amendment could fortify the judiciary by promoting efficiency and checks against overreach, provided political interference is reduced.
Judicial activism continued with Gilani’s disqualification (2012) and Nawaz Sharif’s ouster (2017), often seen as aligned with military interests. Tensions continue under Imran Khan (2018–2022). By 2024, amid political turbulence, the coalition government viewed the judiciary under CJP Qazi Faiz Isa as hostile, pushing the 26th Amendment in a rushed parliamentary session despite opposition protests.
By August 2025, the amendment has deepened impacts within the Supreme Court, with judges warning it undermines collegiality. This reflects Pakistan’s recurring pattern like constitutional reforms born of crisis, restoring executive dominance and oscillating between strengthening democracy.
3. The role of 26th amendment in fortifying judicial independence
Regardless of widespread criticism, the 26th Amendment introduces mechanisms that proponents claim bolster accountability, the judiciary's efficiency and focus on constitutional matters and addressing longstanding issues like case backlogs and arbitrary decision-making.
One key strengthening aspect is the establishment of constitutional benches under amended Article 191A. These kind of specialized panels, comprising at least five Supreme Court judges selected by the JCP, are tasked exclusively with constitutional, public importance and human rights cases. This apartheid aims to expedite ordinary litigation in regular benches, reducing the Supreme Court's backlog of over 50,000 cases as of 2024. By 2025, early implementations have shown promise, with constitutional benches handling high profile matters more systematically which results in potentially enhancing judicial output and public access to justice.
The fixed three year tenure for the CJP under Article 179 promotes stability and prevents indefinite holds on power, allowing for periodic leadership renewal and reducing risks of entrenched biases. Enthusiast argue this curbs "judicial monarchism," where long-serving CJPs exert unchecked influence, as seen in past eras. The nomination process from the top three seniors propose merit based evaluation, potentially elevating competent judges over mere seniority, fostering a more professional judiciary. Amendments to Article 184(3) of Constitution limit Suo Motu powers to constitutional benches which preventing individual judges from initiating politically charged cases which have historically led to instability. This is viewed as strengthening institutional integrity by emphasizing collective decision making. The JCP's enhanced role in performance evaluations of high court judges under Article 209 enhances accountability, allowing for removal of underperforming or corrupt jurists, a step toward internal cleansing.
In 2025, amid economic pressures, these reforms are credited with refocusing the judiciary on core functions, as noted in ThinkFest discussions. Overall, the amendment could fortify the judiciary by promoting efficiency and checks against overreach, provided political interference is reduced.
4. Constitutional and judicial dilemmas under 26th amendment in Pakistan
While intended to reform, the 26th Amendment poses significant challenges, primarily by acerbic judicial independence and exacerbating institutional imbalances in Pakistan's feeble democracy.
a. Political role in judicial appointments:
The most antagonistic change is the enhanced political role in judicial appointments through the parliamentary committee and expanded JCP. With politicians outnumbering judges in the JCP, critics argue this allows executive "court-packing," permits the government to appoint loyalists and sideline independent voices. By August 2025, this has manifested in Supreme Court rifts, with justices accusing the CJP of manipulating bench formations to avoid scrutiny of the amendment. Some political founder has termed the post-amendment judiciary "subservient," facilitating human rights violations.
b. Separation of powers:
The foremost loophole is undermines separation of powers, as enshrined in the Constitution, by subordinating the judiciary to parliamentary whims. International observers, including the ICJ and New York City Bar Association, warn it creates a "pliant judiciary," weakening checks on executive excesses. This politicization risks fair trial rights under Article 10A, as judges may prioritize survival over impartiality.
c. Public trust:
Public trust has decline in with 2025 reports highlighting delayed hearings on critical petitions including challenges to the amendment itself. The opaque overnight passage fuels perceptions of coercion, deepening political polarization. Also in sight of economically, a weakened judiciary deters investment by eroding rule of law, as noted by Stratfor. In a nation with a history of coups, this could invite further military influence, as alleged in X posts. As the former Attorney General of Pakistan Irfan Qadir said:5
“There is nothing in it for the people…. This is a balant attempt to tame the judiciary.”
d. Military trails of Civilians
The one of big challenge for protection of democracy came before constitutional bench was in the form of military trails of civilians. The bench termed the trail of civilians in military courts as constitutional and being consistent with the right to fair trail under article 10-A. That decision drew significant opprobrium from legal community as critics termed it as “setback for justice” and “death of civilian rights”. It notably made civilian courts as subservient to military courts and again raised an important point about the true democratization of the state and protection of fundamental rights.
While intended to reform, the 26th Amendment poses significant challenges, primarily by acerbic judicial independence and exacerbating institutional imbalances in Pakistan's feeble democracy.
a. Political role in judicial appointments:
The most antagonistic change is the enhanced political role in judicial appointments through the parliamentary committee and expanded JCP. With politicians outnumbering judges in the JCP, critics argue this allows executive "court-packing," permits the government to appoint loyalists and sideline independent voices. By August 2025, this has manifested in Supreme Court rifts, with justices accusing the CJP of manipulating bench formations to avoid scrutiny of the amendment. Some political founder has termed the post-amendment judiciary "subservient," facilitating human rights violations.
b. Separation of powers:
The foremost loophole is undermines separation of powers, as enshrined in the Constitution, by subordinating the judiciary to parliamentary whims. International observers, including the ICJ and New York City Bar Association, warn it creates a "pliant judiciary," weakening checks on executive excesses. This politicization risks fair trial rights under Article 10A, as judges may prioritize survival over impartiality.
c. Public trust:
Public trust has decline in with 2025 reports highlighting delayed hearings on critical petitions including challenges to the amendment itself. The opaque overnight passage fuels perceptions of coercion, deepening political polarization. Also in sight of economically, a weakened judiciary deters investment by eroding rule of law, as noted by Stratfor. In a nation with a history of coups, this could invite further military influence, as alleged in X posts. As the former Attorney General of Pakistan Irfan Qadir said:5
“There is nothing in it for the people…. This is a balant attempt to tame the judiciary.”
d. Military trails of Civilians
The one of big challenge for protection of democracy came before constitutional bench was in the form of military trails of civilians. The bench termed the trail of civilians in military courts as constitutional and being consistent with the right to fair trail under article 10-A. That decision drew significant opprobrium from legal community as critics termed it as “setback for justice” and “death of civilian rights”. It notably made civilian courts as subservient to military courts and again raised an important point about the true democratization of the state and protection of fundamental rights.
e. The Era of Judicial Activism and Exercise of Suo Moto Powers:
After General Pervaiz Musharaff imposed martial law, Chaudhary frequently started taking up cases of constitutional importance by exercising Suo Moto powers under article 184(3) of constitution. Suo Moto is a Latin word which means “on its own motions an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party. Meaning that, a judge may take an action without a request made by the party to the court. The SC in various cases assumed its authority where question of public importance or protection of fundamental right was involved. This period was also termed as a period of “judicial activism”6 14in which Chaudhary led court actively pursued cases pertaining to privatization of Pakistan Stell Mills7, ordered military authorities to produce missing persons before the court and implicated CDA officials for their negligence in Margalla towers case8. But after the 26th Amendment, the criteria of Suo Moto Power have been changed which is directly war on the Judicial Activism.
5. Observance of international guidelines
The independence of the judiciary, as codified in various international legal frameworks and principles, is a foundation of democratic governance and the rule of law. The United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary accentuate that the Judicial appointments should be free from political interference, ensuring impartial and fair decision making. Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to a fair trial by an independent tribunal, emphasizing the significant role of Judicial impartiality in protecting Fundamental Rights. International frameworks such as the UDHR and the ICCPR more bolster these ideals, guaranteeing fair and independent tribunals and access to justice without biasedness. Ethical standards like the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct reinforce the values of integrity, fairness and impartiality in Judicial work while the Paris Principles enlighten the necessity of independent national institutions to safeguard Human Rights effectively. The Latimer House Guidelines advocate for a clear separation of powers, vigilant the judiciary's essential role as a check on the executive and legislative branches. The SIRACUSA Principles and Venice Commission Reports provide comprehensive strategies for preserving Judicial independence free from political pressures, while the IBA Standards emphasize the merit-based, transparent Judicial appointments to uphold the judiciary's autonomy. In a nutshell, these global standards establish a unified vision of Judicial independence as a vital element of justice, fairness, and the protection of human rights.
6. Future impact of 26th amendment on Pakistan legal and political framework
The 26th Amendment has the possibility to significantly transform Pakistan's legal and political framework, categorically regarding the principle of Separation of Powers, which is essential for democratic governance. By increasing political influence over the judiciary, the Amendment shaky this crucial separation by opening the door to the concentration of power and possibly encouraging authoritarianism. This deviation could also have harmful effects on political stability, as a judiciary perceived as politically compromised may cause large scale public frustration. Such annoyance could lead to social disorder, further weakening the trust in democratic institutions. Moreover, the Amendment could weaken the fairness of future elections. A judiciary that lacks independence may struggle to ensure free and fair electoral processes, threatening the integrity of democratic elections. Conclusively, the changes brought by the 26th Amendment could result in a judiciary more persistent with political interests than with the law, uncertain its role as a check on government power and compromising its ability to ensure justice.
After General Pervaiz Musharaff imposed martial law, Chaudhary frequently started taking up cases of constitutional importance by exercising Suo Moto powers under article 184(3) of constitution. Suo Moto is a Latin word which means “on its own motions an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party. Meaning that, a judge may take an action without a request made by the party to the court. The SC in various cases assumed its authority where question of public importance or protection of fundamental right was involved. This period was also termed as a period of “judicial activism”6 14in which Chaudhary led court actively pursued cases pertaining to privatization of Pakistan Stell Mills7, ordered military authorities to produce missing persons before the court and implicated CDA officials for their negligence in Margalla towers case8. But after the 26th Amendment, the criteria of Suo Moto Power have been changed which is directly war on the Judicial Activism.
5. Observance of international guidelines
The independence of the judiciary, as codified in various international legal frameworks and principles, is a foundation of democratic governance and the rule of law. The United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary accentuate that the Judicial appointments should be free from political interference, ensuring impartial and fair decision making. Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to a fair trial by an independent tribunal, emphasizing the significant role of Judicial impartiality in protecting Fundamental Rights. International frameworks such as the UDHR and the ICCPR more bolster these ideals, guaranteeing fair and independent tribunals and access to justice without biasedness. Ethical standards like the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct reinforce the values of integrity, fairness and impartiality in Judicial work while the Paris Principles enlighten the necessity of independent national institutions to safeguard Human Rights effectively. The Latimer House Guidelines advocate for a clear separation of powers, vigilant the judiciary's essential role as a check on the executive and legislative branches. The SIRACUSA Principles and Venice Commission Reports provide comprehensive strategies for preserving Judicial independence free from political pressures, while the IBA Standards emphasize the merit-based, transparent Judicial appointments to uphold the judiciary's autonomy. In a nutshell, these global standards establish a unified vision of Judicial independence as a vital element of justice, fairness, and the protection of human rights.
6. Future impact of 26th amendment on Pakistan legal and political framework
The 26th Amendment has the possibility to significantly transform Pakistan's legal and political framework, categorically regarding the principle of Separation of Powers, which is essential for democratic governance. By increasing political influence over the judiciary, the Amendment shaky this crucial separation by opening the door to the concentration of power and possibly encouraging authoritarianism. This deviation could also have harmful effects on political stability, as a judiciary perceived as politically compromised may cause large scale public frustration. Such annoyance could lead to social disorder, further weakening the trust in democratic institutions. Moreover, the Amendment could weaken the fairness of future elections. A judiciary that lacks independence may struggle to ensure free and fair electoral processes, threatening the integrity of democratic elections. Conclusively, the changes brought by the 26th Amendment could result in a judiciary more persistent with political interests than with the law, uncertain its role as a check on government power and compromising its ability to ensure justice.
7. Recommendations
To mitigate the 26th Amendment's challenges while preserving its strengths, Pakistan must implement safeguards that reinforce judicial independence without reversing efficiency gains.
Pakistan should establish transparent criteria for JCP nominations and evaluations by mandating public disclosure of reasons for selections to counter politicization. This could include merit-based scoring systems which must be taken from international models like India's collegium with added accountability. The other thing is to modify the amendment by help of subsequent legislation to take control political members in the JCP, ensuring judges retain a majority, as suggested in many reports like Verfassungsblog analyses. Introduce independent oversight like judicial ombudsman to check and balance bench formations and prevent executive capture. Additionally, enhance training and resources for constitutional benches to handle backlogs effectively, coupled with digital case management systems to boost efficiency. By this way, public engagement through consultations on judicial reforms could rebuild trust, as suggested by HRCP. Last but not the least, the Supreme Court should prioritize hearing challenges to the amendment which fostering judicial dialogue to refine it. International aid from bodies like the ICJ could aid in benchmarking reforms. These steps could transform the amendment into a true strengthening tool.
8. Conclusion
The 26th Amendment embodies Pakistan's ongoing struggle to balance judicial power with accountability. While it offers tools for efficiency and curbing overreach, its risks to independence threaten the rule of law and democratic stability. As of 2025, its implementation has deepened divisions, underscoring the need for vigilant reforms. Ultimately, a strong judiciary is essential for Pakistan's progress; the amendment's legacy will depend on whether it evolves into a force for justice or a symbol of control.
To mitigate the 26th Amendment's challenges while preserving its strengths, Pakistan must implement safeguards that reinforce judicial independence without reversing efficiency gains.
Pakistan should establish transparent criteria for JCP nominations and evaluations by mandating public disclosure of reasons for selections to counter politicization. This could include merit-based scoring systems which must be taken from international models like India's collegium with added accountability. The other thing is to modify the amendment by help of subsequent legislation to take control political members in the JCP, ensuring judges retain a majority, as suggested in many reports like Verfassungsblog analyses. Introduce independent oversight like judicial ombudsman to check and balance bench formations and prevent executive capture. Additionally, enhance training and resources for constitutional benches to handle backlogs effectively, coupled with digital case management systems to boost efficiency. By this way, public engagement through consultations on judicial reforms could rebuild trust, as suggested by HRCP. Last but not the least, the Supreme Court should prioritize hearing challenges to the amendment which fostering judicial dialogue to refine it. International aid from bodies like the ICJ could aid in benchmarking reforms. These steps could transform the amendment into a true strengthening tool.
8. Conclusion
The 26th Amendment embodies Pakistan's ongoing struggle to balance judicial power with accountability. While it offers tools for efficiency and curbing overreach, its risks to independence threaten the rule of law and democratic stability. As of 2025, its implementation has deepened divisions, underscoring the need for vigilant reforms. Ultimately, a strong judiciary is essential for Pakistan's progress; the amendment's legacy will depend on whether it evolves into a force for justice or a symbol of control.
9. References
1. Draft of 26th Amendment in the Constitution of Pakistan https://ecp.gov.pk/storage/uploads/PekedAZCtcu6XeNsPaVTg5K7nI7rFE7LAjufpATZ.pdf
2. Parliamentary debates, Policy Analysts & Legal commentators
3. Maulvi Tamiz-ud-Din Khan vs, Governor Governor General of Pakistan. (PLD 1955 FC 240)
4. PCO-1981 https://factfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-Provisional-Constitution-Order PCO-1981-CMLA-Order-No.1.pdf
5. The Express Tribune https://tribune.com.pk/story/2504691/26th-amendment-has-no-public-benefit
6. Kmiec, Keenan D. " 'The origin and current meanings of judicial activism."' [2004] Cal. L. Rev 92
7. Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2006 SC 697]
8. Haris Gazdar, ‘Judicial activism vs Democratic Consolidation in Pakistan’’, Economic and Political Weekly' (2009) XLIV, no 32
1. Draft of 26th Amendment in the Constitution of Pakistan https://ecp.gov.pk/storage/uploads/PekedAZCtcu6XeNsPaVTg5K7nI7rFE7LAjufpATZ.pdf
2. Parliamentary debates, Policy Analysts & Legal commentators
3. Maulvi Tamiz-ud-Din Khan vs, Governor Governor General of Pakistan. (PLD 1955 FC 240)
4. PCO-1981 https://factfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-Provisional-Constitution-Order PCO-1981-CMLA-Order-No.1.pdf
5. The Express Tribune https://tribune.com.pk/story/2504691/26th-amendment-has-no-public-benefit
6. Kmiec, Keenan D. " 'The origin and current meanings of judicial activism."' [2004] Cal. L. Rev 92
7. Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2006 SC 697]
8. Haris Gazdar, ‘Judicial activism vs Democratic Consolidation in Pakistan’’, Economic and Political Weekly' (2009) XLIV, no 32