Pakistan’s 26th Constitutional Amendment marked a turning point in the country’s constitutional and judicial history. Enacted on 20 - 21 October 20241, it reshaped the judiciary by overhauling judicial appointment procedures, capping the Chief Justice’s tenure, abolishing the Supreme Court’s sou motu powers and mandating special constitutional benches for fundamental rights cases2. Proponents celebrated the reform as a bold step to reassert parliamentary sovereignty and rein in judicial overreach. Critics, however, decried it as a direct assault on judicial independence and a threat to the rule of law3. Against this backdrop, the following discussion unpacks whether the 26th Amendment truly strengthens Pakistan’s judiciary or instead creates deeper challenges for its constitutional order.
The 26th Amendment introduced far reaching institutional reforms that recalibrated the balance of power between the judiciary and the political branches.
One of the most consequential reforms was the restructuring of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). Previously it was dominated by judges, the Commission was reconstituted to include two members each from the National Assembly and Senate as well as a minority or woman representative. This change shifted the balance of power in favour of non judicial members. Moreover, instead of sending judicial nominations directly to the President, the JCP must now submit them to the Prime Minister. This further enhances the executive influence over appointments4.
The process of selecting the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) was also fundamentally altered. The long standing convention of automatic succession based on seniority was discarded in favor of a parliamentary model. A 12 member Special Parliamentary Committee, which consists of eight MNAs and four Senators, now selects the CJP from among the three most senior Supreme Court judges. The Chief Justice will serve a fixed three year term, after which the office rotates. Thereby ending the era of life long seniority based leadership5.
The 26th Amendment introduced far reaching institutional reforms that recalibrated the balance of power between the judiciary and the political branches.
One of the most consequential reforms was the restructuring of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). Previously it was dominated by judges, the Commission was reconstituted to include two members each from the National Assembly and Senate as well as a minority or woman representative. This change shifted the balance of power in favour of non judicial members. Moreover, instead of sending judicial nominations directly to the President, the JCP must now submit them to the Prime Minister. This further enhances the executive influence over appointments4.
The process of selecting the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) was also fundamentally altered. The long standing convention of automatic succession based on seniority was discarded in favor of a parliamentary model. A 12 member Special Parliamentary Committee, which consists of eight MNAs and four Senators, now selects the CJP from among the three most senior Supreme Court judges. The Chief Justice will serve a fixed three year term, after which the office rotates. Thereby ending the era of life long seniority based leadership5.
The amendment also established dedicated constitutional benches within both the Supreme Court and High Courts to decide cases involving constitutional interpretation and fundamental rights. However, the power to nominate judges to these benches, including the presiding judge, was vested in the restructured JCP, which now has a government majority. With broad discretion to expand or reassign benches, critics argue that this provision allows the executive to shape the very composition of courts in politically sensitive cases6.
In addition, new grounds for judicial removal were introduced. Alongside the established criteria of misconduct and incapacity, the amendment added “inefficiency in performance of duties.” This vague and undefined term sparked concern that it could be exploited as a political weapon. This undermine judicial security of tenure and independence7.
Finally, the amendment curtailed the Supreme Court’s suo motu jurisdiction, limiting its ability to take notice of matters on its own. At the same time, it incorporated new socio economic provisions, such as enshrining a constitutional right to a clean environment through Article 9A and mandating the abolition of riba by 2028. Although these reforms do not directly alter judicial structure, they were strategically packaged with the institutional changes to broaden political appeal.8
​Taken together, these provisions dramatically expanded the influence of the legislature and executive over the judiciary. While the government defended the reforms as measures to enhance accountability, transparency and efficiency. Legal scholars and jurists have largely condemned ​them as a fundamental assault on judicial independence and a serious blow to Pakistan’s constitutional order.9.
In addition, new grounds for judicial removal were introduced. Alongside the established criteria of misconduct and incapacity, the amendment added “inefficiency in performance of duties.” This vague and undefined term sparked concern that it could be exploited as a political weapon. This undermine judicial security of tenure and independence7.
Finally, the amendment curtailed the Supreme Court’s suo motu jurisdiction, limiting its ability to take notice of matters on its own. At the same time, it incorporated new socio economic provisions, such as enshrining a constitutional right to a clean environment through Article 9A and mandating the abolition of riba by 2028. Although these reforms do not directly alter judicial structure, they were strategically packaged with the institutional changes to broaden political appeal.8
​Taken together, these provisions dramatically expanded the influence of the legislature and executive over the judiciary. While the government defended the reforms as measures to enhance accountability, transparency and efficiency. Legal scholars and jurists have largely condemned ​them as a fundamental assault on judicial independence and a serious blow to Pakistan’s constitutional order.9.
Proponents of the 26th Amendment argue that it reaffirms parliamentary supremacy, a cornerstone of Pakistan’s constitutional framework. Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif hailed its passage as “a historic day… affirming the supremacy of Parliament,10emphasizing that a democratically elected legislature should have meaningful influence over the judiciary’s leadership to ensure accountability. Supporters contend that the reform prevents any branch, including the judiciary, from becoming unaccountable or disproportionately powerful. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, PPP Chairman, echoed this sentiment, asserting that the changes would curb “undemocratic forces within the judiciary” and foster better cooperation between the executive and the courts.
​ Another key justification is the purported depoliticization and balancing of the judiciary. Government advocates argue that Pakistan’s courts have sometimes exhibited judicial activism,11such as intervening in election disputes suo motu or issuing wide ranging injunctions. By removing the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers and introducing fixed terms for the Chief Justice, proponents maintain that the amendment curbs overreach and creates a more predictable and disciplined judiciary. Pollster Bilal Gilani noted that the reforms “bring [a] balance to activism by the judiciary,” even as he cautioned that they may risk making courts more pliant to the executive12.
Efficiency and case management also feature prominently in the government’s defense. Supporters highlight that specialized constitutional benches will expedite constitutional and fundamental rights cases, ensuring consistency and reducing backlogs. By pooling judges to ​focus on sensitive matters, the amendment aims to streamline judicial administration. Although lawyers criticized the haste and lack of consultation during its drafting, the government maintains that the reforms enhance procedural efficiency and improve judicial functioning13.
​ Another key justification is the purported depoliticization and balancing of the judiciary. Government advocates argue that Pakistan’s courts have sometimes exhibited judicial activism,11such as intervening in election disputes suo motu or issuing wide ranging injunctions. By removing the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers and introducing fixed terms for the Chief Justice, proponents maintain that the amendment curbs overreach and creates a more predictable and disciplined judiciary. Pollster Bilal Gilani noted that the reforms “bring [a] balance to activism by the judiciary,” even as he cautioned that they may risk making courts more pliant to the executive12.
Efficiency and case management also feature prominently in the government’s defense. Supporters highlight that specialized constitutional benches will expedite constitutional and fundamental rights cases, ensuring consistency and reducing backlogs. By pooling judges to ​focus on sensitive matters, the amendment aims to streamline judicial administration. Although lawyers criticized the haste and lack of consultation during its drafting, the government maintains that the reforms enhance procedural efficiency and improve judicial functioning13.
Proponents further emphasize democratic accountability, pointing out that many global democracies involve elected representatives in judicial appointments. During the October 2024 parliamentary debates, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari stressed that “every political decision is inherently political,” highlighting practices in other countries where parliamentary or executive involvement in judge selection is standard. The amendment was also framed as a compromise reform under the 2006 Charter of Democracy between PPP and PML-N, lending it the imprimatur of political consensus14.
Support for the amendment extended across party lines, with two-thirds majorities in both houses, backing from PML-N, PPP, some PTI dissidents, and religious parties like JUI-F. Supporters interpret this broad legislative endorsement as evidence of legitimacy. Additionally, allies argue that the judiciary itself had become politicized, frequently siding with PTI against the government in 2024. By recalibrating judicial oversight, the amendment is portrayed as restoring neutrality and ensuring courts remain accountable to elected authorities.15
​ In sum, proponents present the 26th Amendment as a measure that strengthens democracy, reins in judicial activism, and improves administration, emphasizing “balance,” “reform,” and “parliamentary supremacy.”16
Critics, including senior judges, bar associations, and international jurists, argue that the amendment undermines judicial independence and poses serious threats to the rule of law. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) condemned it as “a blow to judicial independence, the rule of law and human rights,” highlighting its broad implications17. Key objections include:
A major concern is the politicization of judicial appointments18. By reconfiguring the JCP to give political appointees a majority and creating a Special Parliamentary Committee (SPC) to select the Chief Justice, the amendment places Parliament and the executive at the helm of judicial leadership19. Scholars warn that this “court packing” mechanism mirrors tactics used in authoritarian regimes, enabling governments to fill courts with loyalists and reassign judges for political reasons20.
Support for the amendment extended across party lines, with two-thirds majorities in both houses, backing from PML-N, PPP, some PTI dissidents, and religious parties like JUI-F. Supporters interpret this broad legislative endorsement as evidence of legitimacy. Additionally, allies argue that the judiciary itself had become politicized, frequently siding with PTI against the government in 2024. By recalibrating judicial oversight, the amendment is portrayed as restoring neutrality and ensuring courts remain accountable to elected authorities.15
​ In sum, proponents present the 26th Amendment as a measure that strengthens democracy, reins in judicial activism, and improves administration, emphasizing “balance,” “reform,” and “parliamentary supremacy.”16
Critics, including senior judges, bar associations, and international jurists, argue that the amendment undermines judicial independence and poses serious threats to the rule of law. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) condemned it as “a blow to judicial independence, the rule of law and human rights,” highlighting its broad implications17. Key objections include:
A major concern is the politicization of judicial appointments18. By reconfiguring the JCP to give political appointees a majority and creating a Special Parliamentary Committee (SPC) to select the Chief Justice, the amendment places Parliament and the executive at the helm of judicial leadership19. Scholars warn that this “court packing” mechanism mirrors tactics used in authoritarian regimes, enabling governments to fill courts with loyalists and reassign judges for political reasons20.
​Critics also highlight the erosion of separation of powers. Independent judiciaries serve as a check on the legislature and executive, but the 26th Amendment allows the government to influence bench assignments and remove judges for vaguely defined “inefficiency.”21 Critics also highlight the erosion of separation of powers. Independent judiciaries serve as a check on the legislature and executive, but the 26th Amendment allows the government to influence bench assignments and remove judges for vaguely defined “inefficiency.”22 UN human rights bodies and constitutional experts stress that any system permitting executive control over courts is incompatible with impartial justice 23. Article 10A of Pakistan’s Constitution and Article 14 of the ICCPR guarantee fair trials by independent tribunals, standards jeopardized if judges fear reprisal.
Opponents further argue that the amendment threatens the rule of law. By controlling judicial leadership and caseloads, the government risks rendering courts subservient, undermining fundamental rights protection 24. Critics cite examples of previous Supreme Court rulings that clashed with government policies, emphasizing that such checks may now be stifled. Legal practitioners warn that public confidence erodes when justice appears politically influenced25.
Transparency and consultation were also lacking. The amendment was drafted and passed rapidly, with little public or parliamentary debate, violating democratic norms and undermining legitimacy, according to both ICJ and local legal voices26.
Moreover, the 26th Amendment overturned decades of judicial precedent. Past decisions, such as the 1996 Al-Jehad Trust ruling, had reinforced judicial control over appointments and upheld the seniority principle for the Chief Justice. By superseding these conventions, the amendment effectively disrupted the post Musharraf consensus, with critics viewing appointments like that of Justice Yahya Afridi as politically motivated supplantings of legitimate successors.27
Post-amendment decisions appear to confirm these concerns. The newly constituted Constitutional Bench has repeatedly sided with the government in high profile cases, including military trials of civilians, contested judicial transfers, and parliamentary seat allocations, raising fears that civil liberties and public interest are being compromised.
Opponents further argue that the amendment threatens the rule of law. By controlling judicial leadership and caseloads, the government risks rendering courts subservient, undermining fundamental rights protection 24. Critics cite examples of previous Supreme Court rulings that clashed with government policies, emphasizing that such checks may now be stifled. Legal practitioners warn that public confidence erodes when justice appears politically influenced25.
Transparency and consultation were also lacking. The amendment was drafted and passed rapidly, with little public or parliamentary debate, violating democratic norms and undermining legitimacy, according to both ICJ and local legal voices26.
Moreover, the 26th Amendment overturned decades of judicial precedent. Past decisions, such as the 1996 Al-Jehad Trust ruling, had reinforced judicial control over appointments and upheld the seniority principle for the Chief Justice. By superseding these conventions, the amendment effectively disrupted the post Musharraf consensus, with critics viewing appointments like that of Justice Yahya Afridi as politically motivated supplantings of legitimate successors.27
Post-amendment decisions appear to confirm these concerns. The newly constituted Constitutional Bench has repeatedly sided with the government in high profile cases, including military trials of civilians, contested judicial transfers, and parliamentary seat allocations, raising fears that civil liberties and public interest are being compromised.
Observers argue this trend indicates a judiciary increasingly compliant with the executive, rather than an independent check on power.2829
Collectively, critics maintain that the 26th Amendment politicizes judicial appointments, weakens checks and balances, and contravenes international standards of judicial independence30. Think tanks like ISAS caution that such executive control undermines the legitimacy of the political process, eroding public trust in institutions31. In their view, the amendment represents a regression from prior reforms, including the 18th and 19th Amendments, and constitutes a direct assault on judicial independence.
Both proponents and critics of the 26th Amendment appeal to high principles, parliamentary democracy on one side and judicial independence on the other, but a careful analysis of the evidence strongly indicates that the amendment “creates challenges” rather than strengthens the judiciary. Its mechanics overwhelmingly favor political control. Every major international legal authority, including the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and UN experts, underscores that judicial appointments and case assignments must be insulated from political influence32. By contrast, the 26th Amendment explicitly grants Parliament and the executive extensive powers over both. While supporters invoke parliamentary supremacy, efficiency, and balance, these claims are difficult to substantiate in practice.
Proponents argue that the amendment reinforces parliamentary supremacy, expedites judicial decisions, and depoliticizes the courts. In practice, however, it transfers excessive control to politicians, undermines judicial independence protected under Articles 175A and 10A, and risks lowering judicial quality. Far from depoliticizing, it politicizes judicial appointments, allowing ​parties to influence key positions. Additionally, replacing a tenure based Chief Justice with short term, politically controlled appointments may increase partisanship and internal jockeying rather than improve checks and balances.
Collectively, critics maintain that the 26th Amendment politicizes judicial appointments, weakens checks and balances, and contravenes international standards of judicial independence30. Think tanks like ISAS caution that such executive control undermines the legitimacy of the political process, eroding public trust in institutions31. In their view, the amendment represents a regression from prior reforms, including the 18th and 19th Amendments, and constitutes a direct assault on judicial independence.
Both proponents and critics of the 26th Amendment appeal to high principles, parliamentary democracy on one side and judicial independence on the other, but a careful analysis of the evidence strongly indicates that the amendment “creates challenges” rather than strengthens the judiciary. Its mechanics overwhelmingly favor political control. Every major international legal authority, including the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and UN experts, underscores that judicial appointments and case assignments must be insulated from political influence32. By contrast, the 26th Amendment explicitly grants Parliament and the executive extensive powers over both. While supporters invoke parliamentary supremacy, efficiency, and balance, these claims are difficult to substantiate in practice.
Proponents argue that the amendment reinforces parliamentary supremacy, expedites judicial decisions, and depoliticizes the courts. In practice, however, it transfers excessive control to politicians, undermines judicial independence protected under Articles 175A and 10A, and risks lowering judicial quality. Far from depoliticizing, it politicizes judicial appointments, allowing ​parties to influence key positions. Additionally, replacing a tenure based Chief Justice with short term, politically controlled appointments may increase partisanship and internal jockeying rather than improve checks and balances.
In contrast, the criticisms are grounded in legal reasoning, precedent, and international standards. The ICCPR (Article 14) and Pakistan’s own constitutional protections stress that judicial independence is essential for fair trials33. The amendment contravenes these principles by design. Pakistan’s Supreme Court has historically emphasized independence, including in the Al-Jehad case, and the seniority convention for the Chief Justice has long provided stability. By overturning these principles and granting politicians broad authority, the amendment undermines established jurisprudence. Bar associations and renowned jurists have already pledged to challenge its validity, highlighting the absence of consensus even within Pakistan’s legal community.
​The real world implications further support the critics’ concerns. Following the amendment, the newly constituted Constitutional Bench has consistently ruled in favor of the government in several high-profile cases, including military trials of civilians, contested judge transfers, and allocation of parliamentary seats. Reports of judicial intimidation and political influence reinforce fears that the judiciary is increasingly subservient to executive will, eroding both independence and public trust34.
In sum, Although the 26th Amendment claims to reform and strengthen Pakistan’s judiciary, it instead politicizes appointments, limits independent review, and empowers the executive, undermining judicial autonomy and impartial justice. Legal analysis and observed outcomes indicate that the amendment’s risks far outweigh its benefits, highlighting the urgent need to restore genuine judicial independence with transparency and balance.
​The real world implications further support the critics’ concerns. Following the amendment, the newly constituted Constitutional Bench has consistently ruled in favor of the government in several high-profile cases, including military trials of civilians, contested judge transfers, and allocation of parliamentary seats. Reports of judicial intimidation and political influence reinforce fears that the judiciary is increasingly subservient to executive will, eroding both independence and public trust34.
In sum, Although the 26th Amendment claims to reform and strengthen Pakistan’s judiciary, it instead politicizes appointments, limits independent review, and empowers the executive, undermining judicial autonomy and impartial justice. Legal analysis and observed outcomes indicate that the amendment’s risks far outweigh its benefits, highlighting the urgent need to restore genuine judicial independence with transparency and balance.
References:
1.Wikipedia. (n.d.). Twenty-sixth amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan. In Wikipedia. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan - Wikipedia
2.English Aaj TV. (n.d.). English Aaj TV. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from en.wikipedia.orgenglish.aaj.tv
3.Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Institute of South Asian Studies. National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from isas.nus.edu.sg.
4. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
5. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
6. Constitutionally capturing Pakistan’s constitutional courts. (n.d.). Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Constitutionally Capturing Pakistan’s Constitutional Courts
7. Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
8. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
9. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
10. Aaj English TV. (n.d.). President Zardari greenlights 26th constitutional amendment - Pakistan. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from President Zardari greenlights 26th Constitutional Amendment - Pakistan - Aaj English TV
11. Aaj English TV. (n.d.). President Zardari greenlights 26th constitutional amendment - Pakistan. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from President Zardari greenlights 26th Constitutional Amendment - Pakistan - Aaj English TV
​12. Aaj English TV. (n.d.). President Zardari greenlights 26th constitutional amendment - Pakistan. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from President Zardari greenlights 26th Constitutional Amendment - Pakistan - Aaj English TV
1.Wikipedia. (n.d.). Twenty-sixth amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan. In Wikipedia. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan - Wikipedia
2.English Aaj TV. (n.d.). English Aaj TV. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from en.wikipedia.orgenglish.aaj.tv
3.Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Institute of South Asian Studies. National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from isas.nus.edu.sg.
4. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
5. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
6. Constitutionally capturing Pakistan’s constitutional courts. (n.d.). Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Constitutionally Capturing Pakistan’s Constitutional Courts
7. Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
8. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
9. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
10. Aaj English TV. (n.d.). President Zardari greenlights 26th constitutional amendment - Pakistan. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from President Zardari greenlights 26th Constitutional Amendment - Pakistan - Aaj English TV
11. Aaj English TV. (n.d.). President Zardari greenlights 26th constitutional amendment - Pakistan. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from President Zardari greenlights 26th Constitutional Amendment - Pakistan - Aaj English TV
​12. Aaj English TV. (n.d.). President Zardari greenlights 26th constitutional amendment - Pakistan. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from President Zardari greenlights 26th Constitutional Amendment - Pakistan - Aaj English TV
13. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
14. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
15. The International Parliament Journal. (n.d.). Pakistan parliament now controls judiciary through amendment. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan Parliament now controls Judiciary through amendment - The International Parliament Journal (IPJ)
​16. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
17. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
18. Constitutionally Capturing Pakistan’s Constitutional Courts
19. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
20. Constitutionally capturing Pakistan’s constitutional courts. (n.d.). Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Constitutionally Capturing Pakistan’s Constitutional Courts
21. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
22. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
23. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
24. Modern Diplomacy. (n.d.). Shackling justice: Pakistan’s 26th amendment and the death of judicial independence. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Shackling Justice: Pakistan’s 26th Amendment and the Death of Judicial Independence - Modern Diplomacy
25. Courting The Law. (n.d.). Does the 26th amendment threaten judicial independence and the rule of law? Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Does the 26th Amendment Threaten Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law? - Courting The Law
26. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
​27. Modern Diplomacy. (n.d.). Shackling justice: Pakistan’s 26th amendment and the death of judicial independence. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Shackling Justice: Pakistan’s 26th Amendment and the Death of Judicial Independence - Modern Diplomacy
14. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
15. The International Parliament Journal. (n.d.). Pakistan parliament now controls judiciary through amendment. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan Parliament now controls Judiciary through amendment - The International Parliament Journal (IPJ)
​16. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
17. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
18. Constitutionally Capturing Pakistan’s Constitutional Courts
19. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
20. Constitutionally capturing Pakistan’s constitutional courts. (n.d.). Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Constitutionally Capturing Pakistan’s Constitutional Courts
21. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
22. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
23. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
24. Modern Diplomacy. (n.d.). Shackling justice: Pakistan’s 26th amendment and the death of judicial independence. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Shackling Justice: Pakistan’s 26th Amendment and the Death of Judicial Independence - Modern Diplomacy
25. Courting The Law. (n.d.). Does the 26th amendment threaten judicial independence and the rule of law? Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Does the 26th Amendment Threaten Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law? - Courting The Law
26. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
​27. Modern Diplomacy. (n.d.). Shackling justice: Pakistan’s 26th amendment and the death of judicial independence. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Shackling Justice: Pakistan’s 26th Amendment and the Death of Judicial Independence - Modern Diplomacy
28. DAWN. (n.d.). Post-26th judiciary. DAWN.COM. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Post-26th judiciary - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
29. DAWN. (n.d.). Post-26th judiciary. DAWN.COM. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Post-26th judiciary - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
30. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
31. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
32. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
33. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
​34. DAWN. (n.d.). Post-26th judiciary. DAWN.COM. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Post-26th judiciary - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
29. DAWN. (n.d.). Post-26th judiciary. DAWN.COM. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Post-26th judiciary - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
30. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
31. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
32. Institute of South Asian Studies. (n.d.). Pakistan’s constitutional reform package: Judicial independence under threat? National University of Singapore. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan’s Constitutional Reform Package: Judicial Independence Under Threat? – NUS Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
33. International Commission of Jurists. (n.d.). Pakistan: 26th constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary. ICJ. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Pakistan: 26th Constitutional amendment is a blow to the independence of the judiciary | ICJ
​34. DAWN. (n.d.). Post-26th judiciary. DAWN.COM. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Post-26th judiciary - Newspaper - DAWN.COM