SC Office Returns Petition Against 27th Constitutional Amendment

The Supreme Court Registrar’s Office on Friday returned a petition challenging Pakistan’s 27th Constitutional Amendment, directing that a matter of this nature could be taken before the Federal Constitutional Court. The development emerged in Islamabad on August 28 and represents the latest procedural turn in legal challenges directed at the constitutional changes.

The petition was filed by former judge Shabar Raza Rizvi, who sought to challenge the validity of the 27th Constitutional Amendment. According to the case presented by the petitioner, Pakistan’s Constitution was originally framed by the Constituent Assembly and the 1973 Constitution established the Supreme Court as the country’s highest court. The Registrar’s Office did not entertain the petition and instead pointed to the Federal Constitutional Court as the appropriate forum for such a challenge.

The petitioner also raised broader constitutional objections to the amendment. He argued that the present legislature could not be treated in the same manner as a Constituent Assembly and maintained that what he described as the basic features of the Constitution could not be altered. These assertions form part of the petitioner’s legal position and have not been adjudicated on their merits through the Registrar’s Office action.

Another element of the challenge concerned Article 248 and the issue of lifetime immunity. The petition asked for the constitutional amendment to be declared invalid and sought the removal of the lifetime immunity provision challenged by the petitioner. It also raised questions connected with judicial independence and the constitutional framework governing the judiciary. The return of the petition means those substantive arguments were not decided by the Supreme Court through this filing.

The Registrar’s Office has previously declined to receive another petition challenging the same constitutional amendment, making Friday’s action part of a continuing procedural issue over where such constitutional challenges should be instituted. The latest response reinforces the position of the Supreme Court’s administrative office that petitions of this type should be brought before the Federal Constitutional Court rather than processed through the route attempted by the petitioner.

The development is significant for Pakistan’s legal and political landscape because constitutional amendments can affect the structure and authority of state institutions. At this stage, however, the Registrar’s Office decision should not be treated as a ruling affirming or rejecting the validity of the 27th Amendment. The action concerns the forum in which the challenge may be pursued, while the constitutional arguments themselves remain unresolved.

The next step will depend on whether the petitioner chooses to approach the Federal Constitutional Court in line with the Registrar’s Office observation. Any further proceedings would determine whether the challenge advances to substantive judicial consideration and whether the respondents are called upon to defend the amendment. Until such proceedings take place, the legal questions raised in the petition remain pending rather than judicially settled.