Lawyers Challenge 27th Constitutional Amendment in Sindh High Court; Lahore High Court Bar Association to Move Supreme Court
**LAHORE (Qudrat Daily)** — Lawyers have filed a constitutional petition in the Sindh High Court challenging the 27th Constitutional Amendment, while the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) has announced plans to challenge the amendment before the Supreme Court.
In Sindh High Court, Advocate Asif Waheed submitted the petition through Advocate Ibrahim Saifuddin, making the federation a respondent. The petition contends that the 27th Amendment is unconstitutional and seeks to restrain the federal government from establishing a Federal Constitutional Court.
The petitioner argued that for 70 years, all constitutional interpretations have been made by the Supreme Court, and under the new amendment, its rulings would not apply to the proposed Federal Constitutional Court — raising serious concerns about the constitutional status of Supreme Court judgments.
The petition further stated that granting lifelong immunity to the President contradicts Islamic principles and that no country in the world provides such exemption. It also argued that the forced transfer of judges undermines judicial independence and urged the court to declare the clause preventing challenges to constitutional amendments as unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, the LHCBA passed a unanimous resolution in its general house meeting, announcing its decision to challenge the amendment in the Supreme Court. The association declared that the current parliament is controversial and lacks the legitimacy to pass constitutional amendments, vowing to contest the 27th Amendment just as it did the 26th.
Earlier, a petition against the 27th Amendment 2025 was withdrawn in the Lahore High Court. During the hearing before Justice Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to attach the original draft and amend the petition. The court noted that the amendment had not yet become part of the Constitution, deeming the petition premature.
The Additional Attorney General argued that constitutional amendments cannot be challenged in any court and that the petition was inadmissible since the approved draft was not attached.
Petitioner Hassan Latif had made the Prime Minister, Speaker National Assembly, and the Ministry of Law respondents, contending that the amendment’s immunity clause violates the spirit of the Constitution’s preamble and diminishes the powers of the Supreme Court.
He further maintained that the amendment threatens judicial independence and disturbs the federal structure by being enacted without provincial consultation. The petition urged the courts to declare the amendment unconstitutional and prevent its implementation, emphasizing that the Supreme Court’s authority cannot be curtailed in any form.
