• ‘Preparations underway’ to house proposed constitutional court on Shariat Court premises
• Change of building won’t affect court’s powers, observes CB judge
• Lawyer challenges proposed amendment
ISLAMABAD: Though no draft of the 27th Amendment has been made public yet, its impact can already be seen in the judicial corridors of the capital.
On Friday, the proposed amendment was assailed before the Supreme Court, while a flurry of ‘administrative activity’ suggested that groundwork was already being laid for the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) — one of the proposals said to be part of the latest legislative package.
It was these moves that ostensibly prompted a Supreme Court judge to remark that a “change of building” would not reduce their authority.
Administrative activities observed at the Islamabad High Court (IHC) hinted that the proposed FCC may be housed at the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) premises, with ongoing discussions suggested that the latter could be moved to the third floor of the IHC building.
At present, the FSC is functioning with only three judges, including the chief justice, against a sanctioned strength of eight.
Sources said all the judges of the FSC could be accommodated on one floor of the IHC.
They confirmed that the process of vacating the third floor of the IHC building is currently underway, with equipment and office materials being shifted to alternate locations.
The move has been described by officials as part of broader administrative realignments currently in progress.
An office order issued by the judicial department of the IHC on Nov 7 reflects the ongoing internal re-organisation related to record management.
‘Change of building’
These and related developments reverberated in the Supreme Court too, where during a hearing related to Civil Service Rules, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail of the Constitutional Bench observed that “a change of building” will not reduce their authority.
The observation came after Justice Aminuddin Khan, who was heading the bench, asked senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui how much time he would take to conclude his arguments.
The counsel replied it might take some time, though he wished “the case should end today, since I have no intention of advancing arguments while standing inside the Shariat Court building”.
“If the possession of the building has to be taken, then why the FSC only,” the counsel continued, “Why the adjacent building (a reference to PM Secretariat) is not an option if at all a building is to be taken over?”
A smiling Justice Mandokhail remarked that there had been some progress in the counsel’s favour the previous night.
Mr Siddiqui then remarked he had a strong conviction that nothing adverse would come to harm the SC. “If this is the spirit, then why worry?” Justice Mandokhail quipped.
“We are bound to follow whatever Constitution dictates,” Justice Aminuddin Khan added.
The counsel further said, “How grand the judges look while sitting in the Supreme Court’s courtroom.” He remarked that everybody knows why the FSC was created.
At this point, Justice Mandokhail asserted that a change of building would not reduce any of the court’s powers.
Restraining order sought
Meanwhile, Barrister Ali Tahir through a separate petition urged the SC to declare unconstitutional any proposal, bill or discussion that curtails, transfers, suspends, or abolishes the constitutional jurisdiction of the SC under Article 184(3) or the high courts under Article 199.
The petition also sought a restraining order against the federal government, cabinet, parliament, and all other organs or functionaries of the state, pending a final decision.
The federal government, it pleaded, should be asked to refrain from taking any step, legislative, executive, or administrative, aimed at introducing, debating, processing, or passing any bill or proposal, including the proposed 27th Amendment bill.
It stated that the SC’s original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) constitutes an essential, inviolable, and non-amenable feature of the Constitution, forming part of its basic structure and fundamental framework. Therefore, no constitutional amendment, legislation, or executive action can lawfully diminish or extinguish this jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court, the petition argued.
It sought a declaration that any attempt to establish a parallel or superior forum styled as a constitutional court, distinct from or in substitution of the SC or the high courts, would be repugnant to Articles 175 to 191 of the Constitution.
Published in Dawn, November 8th, 2025
