For 78 years, millions have been denied justice, denied timely redress, trapped in poverty, crushed by delay, and stripped of dignity. If constitutionalism means anything, it must begin with Article 9. In our jurisprudence, “life” is not mere survival. It is access to justice, livelihood security, transparent governance, institutional efficiency, and human dignity. Applied as written, Article 9 can transform governance and enforce accountability. But that demands intellectual honesty, constitutional discipline, and a shift from institutional ego to public service.

A dangerous narrative now equates parliamentary authority with judicial independence. At the recent All-Pakistan Lawyers’ Convention, abstract appeals to judicial supremacy drowned out constitutional text. Pakistan needs an independent judiciary that operates strictly under the Constitution and delivers justice to the common citizen. The Constitution is supreme. Parliament legislates and amends, but only within a written constitutional order. Assaulting that authority through social media polemics, text-free doctrines, or jurisdictionally defective petitions confuses young lawyers, misleads the public, and erodes the rule of law.

The issue is not whether Parliament may amend the Constitution. It may. The issue is the legal effect of those amendments and whether the bar meets it with clarity. The deeper question is: what does judicial independence mean in practice, and how is it enforced? The 27th Amendment’s Article 239(5) is explicit that no court shall entertain any challenge to a constitutional amendment on any ground whatsoever. This clause overrides every other provision and precedent. Earlier rulings permitting structural or substantive challenges are extinguished. The amendment is now an immutable constitutional text. Any revision must come through political struggle, electoral........

© The Friday Times