Senior judge questions the basis of the proposed Federal Constitutional Court
Pakistan’s judicial and political landscape is again in the spotlight as senior jurists weigh in on a controversial proposal: the creation of a Federal Constitutional Court. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, a respected figure among the judiciary, has openly challenged the reform, arguing that the plan does not stem from a genuine reform agenda but rather functions as a political device intended to weaken and control the role of the courts.
What Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has said
Speaking to observers and legal experts, Justice Shah asserted that the proposed court offers no clear pathway to strengthening constitutional interpretation or delivering faster justice. He warned that several design features could be used to influence judicial outcomes, potentially turning the court into an instrument for political actors rather than an independent guardian of the constitution. In his view, the reform risks eroding judicial independence, a cornerstone of Pakistan’s constitutional framework.
Why this matters for Pakistan’s judiciary
The debate touches on fundamental questions about how constitutional disputes are resolved and who has the final say on constitutional interpretation. Proponents of the Federal Constitutional Court argue that a specialized body could streamline cases, clarify constitutional questions, and reduce backlogs. Critics, including Justice Shah, contend that creating a high-powered court with political influence can compromise the courts’ impartiality and the public’s trust in the judiciary.
The broader political context
The proposal arrives at a time when Pakistan’s constitutional governance is closely watched by policymakers, legal practitioners, and civil society. Supporters claim the court could act as a check on executive overreach, while opponents fear that the new institution might become a battleground for political factions. In his assessment, Justice Shah emphasizes that reforms should strengthen constitutional protections and enhance accountability without giving the political class new levers to shape judicial decisions.
Key concerns raised by the judiciary
Several concerns have been highlighted in legal circles: transparency in appointment processes, potential overlaps with existing high courts, and the risk of politicization of rulings. Critics argue that without robust procedural safeguards, the Federal Constitutional Court could undermine the coherence of Pakistan’s legal system, create jurisdictional ambiguities, and delay important constitutional rulings during political transitions.
What a genuine reform should look like
In conversations about constitutional reform, judges and legal scholars often stress the importance of reinforcing institutional independence, clarity of mandate, and transparent appointment mechanisms. A truly reform-minded approach would prioritize predictable, rule-based processes for constitutional interpretation, ensure the court’s autonomy from political pressures, and provide measurable improvements in efficiency and accessibility for all citizens.
Implications for citizens
Ultimately, the legitimacy of any reform rests on its impact on everyday rights and the rule of law. If the Federal Constitutional Court is seen as a political tool rather than a constitutional accelerator, the public may question the fairness of major rulings and the protection of fundamental freedoms. Justice Shah’s comments reflect a broader concern that reforms must strengthen the justice system’s credibility, not weaken it.
The path forward
As discussions continue, it will be critical for lawmakers, jurists, and civil society to engage in open dialogue. A transparent process that considers the concerns of the judiciary while addressing the needs for efficiency could help bridge the gap between reform rhetoric and real, enduring improvements in constitutional governance. The goal should be to fortify the rule of law, not to create new avenues for political influence.
Conclusion
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s warning that the Federal Constitutional Court risks becoming a political instrument underscores a central challenge in modern constitutional reform. For reforms to be meaningful, they must emerge from a genuine commitment to judicial independence, procedural integrity, and constitutional accountability—principles that endure beyond political cycles and safeguard every citizen’s rights.
