LAHORE: A senior lawyer has approached the Lahore High Court (LHC), challenging the constitutional validity of the 27th Amendment, specifically targeting new provisions that allow for the transfer of superior court judges without their consent.
Advocate Asad Jamal filed a constitutional petition through Barrister Sameer Khosa, resting the core of the legal challenge on the amendment to Article 200, which now empowers the executive-dominated Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to transfer high court judges between provinces, without their prior approval.
The petition argues that this requirement of consent is not merely a procedural formality, but an emphatic recognition of a judge’s personal and professional stake in his posting.
It says the new framework introduced under the 27th Amendment strikes at one of its most fundamental and salient features — namely, the independence of the judiciary by empowering the executive to arbitrarily and unreasonably transfer judges of high courts to punish them whenever they appear to be acting independently or against the interests of the government of the day.
The petition argues that these amendments directly threaten judicial independence by subjecting judges to the risk of non-consensual transfers and punitive disciplinary proceedings in the event of refusal, thereby impairing their ability to function as independent and neutral arbiters of justice.
It points out that the requirement of consent (of the judge being transferred) and consultation with the chief justices (CJs) of the high courts was reintroduced under the 18th Amendment within Article 200 of the 1973 Constitution, to be applicable to all transfers of judges from one high court to another.
Additionally, the 18th Amendment also removed the punitive provision of “deemed resignation” upon refusing transfer.
The petition argues that the 18th Amendment that strengthened the independence of the judiciary, in consonance with the doctrine of separation of powers and provided security of tenure to a judge, has been done away with under the 27th Amendment.
It says that even in the Islamabad High Court judges’ case the Supreme Court, in the majority verdict in 2025 prior to the 27th Amendment, had to declare that the requirement that no judge shall be transferred without his consent is an emphatic recognition of the judge’s personal and professional stake in his posting.
The petition asks the court to declare that sections 41, 48(c)(iii) and 48(d)(ii) of the Constitution (27th Amendment) Act, 2025 and amendments made to articles 200 and 209 of the Constitution, violate the salient features of the Constitution, including the independence of the judiciary, rule of law, separation of powers and fundamental rights.
It also seeks a declaration to the effect that any actions, appointments, or decisions made by any person or body under the authority of, or pursuant to articles 200 and 209 as amended to be unlawful, illegal, and are therefore set aside as being unconstitutional.
Published in media, January 22nd, 2026
American Dollar Exchange Rate