The public trust in the judiciary has been seriously shaken after the 27^th amendment. The 27^th constitutional amendment brings major changes in the judicial structure of Pakistan. A new court “Federal Constitutional Court”, would be established, conferring all the powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will be the appellant court, not the apex court of Pakistan. In addition to these, the transfer of judges from one High Court to another will be the subject of the executive, and the consent of judges will become irrelevant. All these lead to the rise of a question: will public trust in the judiciary remain after the 27^th amendment?

The establishment of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has severely affected the public’s faith in the judiciary. Before the amendment in Article 184(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court was considered the final authority for enforcing fundamental rights and the interpretation of the Constitution. The transfer of powers from the Supreme Court to the Federal Constitutional Court became the subject of institutional disruption and uncertainty. This led to damage to public confidence in the judiciary. The International Commission of Justice condemn the 27^th amendment, calling it a “full-frontal assault on judicial independence.” The creation of a new court resulted in the perception among the public that change is driven by political interest, not by justice.

Giving the powers of transfer of High Court judges to the executive brings a sense of insecurity among the public. The consent of the judges of the High Court becomes irrelevant under Article 200 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The transfer of the judges into the hands of the executive seems to be a political reward or punishment, not an administrative necessity. This creates a sense of vulnerability among the public. The cases between the public and political parties would be decided on the discretion of that particular party instead of the parameters of justice. All these, act as a chilling effects on the entire judiciary.

Giving the executive the power to appoint judges of the federal constitutional court (FCC) is equivalent to appointing the watchdog by master. This not only underlines the political influence but also undermines judicial independence and public trust. This inevitably sparks dissatisfaction among the public and erosion of trust in the judiciary. When the appointment of judges is primarily based on their ideologies and alignment with the political parties instead of merit, a sense of protection under the law will be absent. A judiciary populated with political nominees can turn black into white, but not guarantee the fundamental rights of citizens of the state.

Centralizing all the authorities in one institution leads to dissatisfaction among the public. Separation of powers is the main concept of democracy. This prevents tyranny by distributing powers among different institutions and ensuring mutual checks. The 27^th constitutional amendment has failed to underline the independence of the judiciary. The judicial control has been given into the hands of the executive. This increasingly raises the sense of vulnerability among the public. The 27^th Amendment weakened the constitutional structure of democratic governance, as the power of the judiciary to check executive authority has been dismantled.

Perception of politicization takes over judicial credibility. The establishment of new courts and the appointment of judges made by the executive creates a lens through which every ruling would judge. The courts don’t remain as impartial arbiters for the public, but as a chessboard to legitimize the government’s political agendas. This continuous public doubt in the judiciary leads to non-compliance with the judicial order. The direct effect of this obedience will ultimately diminish the overall respect for the rule of law.   When the judicial authority becomes subordinate to the political institutions, the destabilization of the constitutional order would be observed.

The segregation of power between the Supreme Court and the federal constitutional court led to the erosion of public trust in the judiciary. The Supreme Court, which once served as the ultimate protector of the fundamental right, has come second in the hierarchy of courts after the 27^th amendment. The demotion of the apex court of Pakistan has served as a symbolic message to the public that the constitutional safeguards are weakened. The long-standing institutional legitimacy strengthens the public faith in the constitutional supremacy. This becomes weakened after the subordination of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Moving forward, the 27^th constitutional amendment has created a sense of vulnerability among the public and weakened their faith in the judiciary. To restore the public faith has become an urgent need.  The judicial branch must remain independent from the executive. The appointments of the judges should not be made by the executive. Article 200 of the Constitution of Pakistan must be amended and restore the condition of judges’ consent while making their transfer from one high court to another. The separation of powers must be observed to uphold the constitutional democracy. The peace and stability in any state cannot be observed on the parameters of rules and laws, but on the system of justice and public faith in the judiciary.