A majority of Supreme Court judges have declined a proposal for collective resignations during a tense full court meeting held on November 14 to review the impact of the recently approved 27th Constitutional Amendment, Aaj News reported citing insider sources.
The meeting was chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and attended by 13 judges. Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, and Justice Musarrat Hilali were absent due to personal commitments or health issues.
The 27th Constitutional Amendment — signed into law by President Asif Ali Zardari on November 13 — has sparked intense debate. The amendment establishes a Federal Constitutional Court, shifting constitutional matters away from the Supreme Court, a move critics argue significantly weakens the apex court’s authority. Opposition parties protested the amendment’s passage, calling it an attack on judicial independence.
A day after the amendment became law, two senior Supreme Court judges, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah, resigned in protest, calling the legislation unconstitutional and harmful to the judiciary’s autonomy.
During the meeting, several judges voiced concern that the amendment directly impaired the SC’s constitutional jurisdiction. Some even proposed that the entire bench resign collectively to resist further legislative encroachment. However, the proposal failed to gain majority support.
Chief Justice Afridi reportedly emphasized that communication on such critical matters must occur internally and through appropriate channels rather than through public letters or statements directed at government institutions. He also reminded the judges that while the Supreme Court can review legislation for constitutionality, it cannot preemptively block the parliament from legislating.
The resignations of Justices Shah and Minallah were also discussed, with the chief justice noting that such significant decisions should have been communicated to him beforehand.
Sources described the environment of the meeting as sombre and tense, with judges acknowledging the gravity of the situation and stressing the need for a unified, institutional response to safeguard judicial independence.
The meeting concluded without a unanimous decision, leaving the judiciary in a state of uncertainty as debates over the amendment continue to intensify.
