The 26th constitutional amendment of Pakistan has given overriding authority to Parliament over judiciary. It has sparked intense debate across the country. The amendment shackles the judiciary by compromising its independence and paving the way for increased political influence over the judiciary. By limiting the role of judiciary in interpreting certain constitutional provisions and reviewing parliamentary decisions, the amendment risks undermining the principle of checks and balances essential to a democratic state. Thus, this amendment has challenged the conventional boundaries of separation of powers This concentration of power within Parliament raises concerns over whether judges can maintain impartiality when their appointment is subject to political bodies. It can be said that the amendment comes off like peas in a pod; some opines it as judicial reform while the other warn of risks to judicial independence. Let the time decide what this amendment will bring for the politics and judiciary of the state. Is this amendment a much-needed reform or a means to bind the judiciary to the state’s will?

The 26th Amendment to Pakistan’s Constitution was passed by Parliament in October 2024 grants Parliament ultimate authority on appointment of supreme judge, and other court judges, certain constitutional interpretations, limiting the ability of judiciary to review parliamentary actions. This act seems a redefining role of parliament, shaping the judiciary. In addition to appointment powers, Parliament now holds substantial sway over certain constitutional interpretations, essentially redefining judicial oversight. This change curtails the judiciary’s ability to review or challenge parliamentary actions, especially in matters deemed within the legislature’s purview. This is an outcome of several high-profile cases in which judicial decisions overturned parliamentary legislation, igniting conflicts between Pakistan’s legislative and judicial branches. The historical past of Pakistan has ample tales to talk about the rift between judiciary and legislature, however, this time, what will come ahead might deepen it.

A healthy democracy relies on the separation of powers to prevent any one branch of government from gaining too much control. This system is designed to safeguard citizens’ rights by ensuring that judicial, legislative, and executive powers remain distinct, each with specific roles and responsibilities. Everywhere in the world, including Pakistan, the judiciary has historically functioned as a stabilizing force, particularly during political turmoil; limiting the judiciary’s authority to review parliamentary actions, the 26th Amendment shifts this balance in ways that could affect democratic accountability. The principal role of judiciary is to serve as a neutral arbiter capable of curbing potential abuses of power by Parliament or the executive. Judicial review (the power of courts to assess the constitutionality of legislative acts) is a cornerstone of democracy, acting as a safeguard against possible legislative overreach. Reducing judicial influence on constitutional matters could, in the long term erode public confidence in Pakistan’s judicial system and hinder its ability to hold elected representatives accountable.

The government has contemplated this amendment as judicial reform. It is a necessary correction to address flaws in the current judicial system. It constituted a constitutional bench, aiming to clear backlogs of pending cases. It will lead to better accountability in judicial appointments, potentially curbing instances where connections or biases may overshadow merit. It further suggests increased transparency is crucial as the judiciary is not immune to criticism, especially regarding perceived internal favoritism. Moreover, this implies that judicial overreach has often stalled political reforms, particularly in areas critical for Pakistan’s development, such as economic policy, national security, and electoral reforms. It will also facilitate swift action on key issues without interference. It could be a reminder that elected representatives are ultimately responsible for charting the nation’s path.

The flip side of the coin, however, voice concerns that the amendment could open the door to authoritarian practices. The amendment constrains the judiciary, jeopardizing its independence and allowing for greater political interference.  The over-powered Parliament unchecked by judicial oversight could lead to potential abuses of power, as lawmakers might be tempted to pass self-serving legislation without fear of judicial intervention. Judicial independence is essential for maintaining checks and balances and any limitations on this independence could create a governance vacuum where parliamentary actions go unchallenged even if they breach citizens’ rights or democratic norms.

The judiciary of Pakistan has a unique role in defending constitutional rights and protecting minorities. The 26th Amendment might render the judiciary less effective in safeguarding these rights, particularly in cases where Parliament enacts legislation that could impact vulnerable communities or minority groups. Pakistan is weaved with a diverse social fabric, a judiciary with limited powers may struggle to serve as an adequate defender of these communities’ interests. Moreover, Public perception around the 26th Amendment is divided, reflecting the broader debate on the balance between democracy and judicial oversight. Some citizens welcome the amendment, seeing it as a step towards greater national stability and efficiency, others worry that it weakens an essential democratic institution. The lack of a strong judicial counterbalance might lead to a less transparent system where citizens have fewer avenues to challenge laws that may infringe upon their rights.

The 26th Constitutional Amendment marks a critical juncture in Pakistan’s democratic evolution, challenging trichotomy of powers and raising fundamental questions about judicial independence and governance. If this amendment goes unchallenged, it could set a precedent that encourages future amendments limiting judicial oversight. In the long term, a weakened judiciary might struggle to perform its essential functions, impacting the rule of law and creating an environment where the political elite can operate with minimal scrutiny. Pakistan’s democratic history is full of contestation between judiciary and the executive and this amendment could exacerbate these conflicts in the future. For Pakistan to achieve sustainable governance, a balanced approach is essential. Compromises that foster collaboration rather than competition between the branches of government are necessary for democracy to thrive in Pakistan. A potential solution could be to re-evaluate the amendment, allowing for parliamentary authority on certain matters while preserving judicial review on others, particularly those affecting fundamental rights and constitutional safeguards. Such an approach could reinforce both institutions, ensuring that democracy, separation of powers and the rule of law prevail without one institution overshadowing the other.