Background: What is at stake in the proposed Federal Constitutional Court?
The discussion around a Federal Constitutional Court in Pakistan has intensified in recent months, with policymakers arguing that a higher constitutional court could streamline decisions and reduce backlogs. Critics, however, contend that the proposal risks undermining judicial independence and turning the court into a political tool. The debate centers on whether such a reform would genuinely strengthen the judiciary or merely shift power within the state apparatus.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s assessment: Reform vs. political device
Senior Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, has voiced pointed concerns about the proposed constitutional court. He stated that the plan does not emerge from a genuine reform agenda. Instead, he characterized it as a political device intended to weaken and control the judiciary. His remarks align with a broader chorus of legal scholars who worry that a new court could become beholden to the very political actors it is meant to oversee.
Implications for judicial independence
Independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of any democracy. Critics argue that creating a Federal Constitutional Court could concentrate power, influence case selection, and potentially undermine the authority of existing supreme and high courts. Justice Shah’s warning suggests that without robust safeguards, the court could serve as a mechanism for political elites to shield or advance policies, rather than serve as an impartial arbiter of constitutional law.
What reform should look like, according to critics
Proponents of genuine reform typically call for measures that enhance transparency, ensure appointment criteria are merit-based and insulated from political pressure, and strengthen the authority and resources of the judiciary as a whole. Suggestions include clear constitutional mandates for appointment processes, public accountability mechanisms, and a timetable for addressing backlogs without creating new hierarchies that could complicate judicial review.
Balancing accountability with independence
The debate is ultimately about balance. A reformed system should improve efficiency and consistency in constitutional rulings while preserving the independence of adjudication. The risk identified by Justice Shah is that a politically framed reform could erode public confidence and invite political manipulation under the guise of modernization.
What this means for the public and legal practitioners
For lawyers, scholars, and citizens, the core question is whether a Federal Constitutional Court would advance access to justice and protect constitutional rights, or whether it would alter the landscape in ways that tilt power dynamics. The outcome hinges on how the reform, if pursued, is designed, implemented, and checked by other constitutional safeguards.
Moving forward: engaging in constructive dialogue
Open, informed dialogue among judges, lawmakers, legal practitioners, and civil society is essential. If reform proceeds, it should be accompanied by transparent criteria for appointment, clear jurisdictional boundaries, and robust oversight to ensure that the court remains a neutral interpreter of the Constitution rather than a political instrument.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s critique serves as a reminder that reform proposals must withstand scrutiny not only on paper but in how they affect real-world judicial independence and public trust in the rule of law.
