The resignation of Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza as a judge of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Saturday—publicly attributed to “personal reasons”—has further widened an already deep rift in Pakistan’s troubled judicial landscape. Justice Mirza, ranked fifth in seniority and a member of the LHC’s administration committee, stepped down at a moment of unprecedented upheaval. His decision follows the resignations of two Supreme Court judges, senior puisne judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah, both of whom quit in protest after the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment. Calling the amendment a direct assault on the constitution, Justice Shah declared that the revision “dismantles the Supreme Court, compromises judicial independence and weakens the country’s constitutional democracy.” He stated that he could not serve on a court “stripped of its constitutional authority,” a clear reference to the newly amended Article 189, which now stipulates that Supreme Court decisions no longer bind the newly formed Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).
Rather than engaging in introspection, the government’s reaction has been defensive and dismissive. Federal ministers and senior PML-N leaders accused the resigning judges of making “political speeches,” even calling their statements “unconstitutional.” Legal experts and observers have pushed back forcefully, asking why judges should be barred from commenting on political implications when the Supreme Court itself consistently hears politically charged cases, when constitutional interpretation is inseparable from politics, and when the constitution itself is, fundamentally, a political document. Judges, they argue, not only have the right but the duty to defend constitutional order. Moreover, the departures of Justices Shah and Minallah should prompt serious reflection on the damage inflicted upon Pakistan’s judicial institutions. Both judges have authored progressive, rights-affirming judgments on issues ranging from minority protections and gender equality to environmental justice. Their absence will reverberate far beyond the courtroom.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this crisis is how little these resignations have disturbed the broader political landscape. The muted public and institutional response speaks volumes. When principled voices are pushed out of judicial spaces, it is not only the courts that suffer—the democratic fabric of the country loosens as well. If judges remain silent on matters of constitutional significance, these issues risk disappearing from the national discourse altogether, to the detriment of every citizen. While the current PML-N government may believe it stands to benefit from the 27th Amendment, the weakening of democratic safeguards rarely serves any political actor for long. History shows that laws crafted to consolidate power often return to haunt their creators. Today’s beneficiaries may well become tomorrow’s casualties.
Yet even amid this institutional strain, there remain paths toward correction. The Pakistani judiciary has repeatedly shown a capacity for internal renewal, and many judges continue to uphold constitutional principles with integrity and restraint. Civil society, the legal community, and segments of the political class are increasingly vocal about the long-term dangers posed by the 27th Amendment, signalling that the debate is far from over. If this moment becomes a catalyst for an honest national conversation on judicial reform, separation of powers, and the constitutional responsibilities of the courts, then these unsettling resignations could ultimately nudge the system toward a more accountable and resilient equilibrium.
Shafaqna Pakistan
pakistan.shafaqna.com
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the article