“A Judiciary in Turmoil” – Dual Resignations of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah in the aftermath of the 27th Constitutional Amendment!
One of the most dramatic judicial tremors hit Pakistan on Thursday when Supreme Court Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah resigned within hours of President Asif Ali Zardari signing into law the contentious 27th Constitutional Amendment. Their exit has increased national debate on constitutional integrity, institutional balance, and the future of judicial independence.
The Amendment That Sparked the Fire
The 27th Constitutional Amendment had already attracted heavy public scrutiny, and the attempt to significantly alter the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is seen by many jurists as a dilution of the judiciary’s powers to uphold fundamental rights. Hours into its enactment, the fallout was immediate.
In their resignation letters to Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, both judges announced their resignations but called for a full court meeting and a judicial conference to collectively look into what they called the historic disruption of the constitutional scheme of Pakistan.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah: “This Is Not the Court I Joined”
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah rose to the occasion, known for his progressive jurisprudence and steadfast commitment to constitutionalism, and tendered a deeply emotional and principled resignation: he said the court, now divested of all essential constitutional powers, was no longer an institution to which he had sworn an oath to serve.
Today, I am asked to serve in a court stripped of its constitutional jurisdiction; in a court that no longer guards the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan. That is not the court I joined and not the judicial life I chose.
His words echo a judiciary under pressure; a sentiment which has resonated not only among the legal fraternity but across civil society.
Justice Athar Minallah: A Resignation Rooted in Oath and Principle
Justice Athar Minallah, in his resignation letter addressed directly to the president, reflected on his oath taken over a decade ago—an oath to defend “the Constitution” in its true spirit. He emphasized that his duty was never to uphold a version weakened or reshaped to diminish democratic safeguards.
He stressed that even before the amendment, he had warned the Chief Justice of the dangers of the legislation. His concerns, he said, had now “materialized amid selective silence and inaction,” a powerful critique of institutional inertia.
A Judiciary Standing at a Crossroads
These resignations are something more than symbolic gestures; they mark an unprecedented moment in the constitutional history of Pakistan. They have shown fissures at the highest plane of judiciary, which raises questions about the balance of power among state institutions.
Legal scholars say the amendment could redefine the courts’ function for a generation, while political analysts predict deepening clashes among the three branches of government. The country waits now to know whether the Supreme Court will heed what the retiring justices called for by convening the full court session, and what might come from that.
What’s in Store for Pakistan’s Democratic Setup Next?
The resignations have injected urgency into the conversation regarding constitutional protections, judicial autonomy, and political influence. As public discourse intensifies, the crisis may well become a turning point—either in reinforcing the foundational role of the judiciary or redefining it entirely.
One thing is certain: Pakistan’s legal and political landscape has entered uncharted territory, and the coming days will determine how the Pakistan Supreme Court crisis readjusts the concepts of governance, justice, and democratic norms.
For more updates on political and judicial developments in Pakistan, please stay tuned to Pakistan Updates.
