Five judges of the Islamabad High Court have formally challenged the transfer of their intra-court appeal to the newly established Federal Constitutional Court. The judges filed an application requesting that their case be sent back to the Supreme Court for a hearing. This marks a significant legal challenge to the recently enacted 27th Constitutional Amendment.
The judges—Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Justice Saman Riffat Imtiaz—are contesting a Supreme Court verdict concerning the transfer and seniority of IHC judges. Their appeal was automatically shifted to the FCC following the amendment. The amendment created the new court.
In their petition, the judges presented a fundamental legal argument. They asserted that both the transfer of their appeal and the 27th Amendment itself “lack lawful authority.” They contend that the amendment violates essential features of the nation’s Constitution.
The petition raises profound constitutional questions. It asks whether Parliament, under the guise of an amendment, can alter the basic structure of governance. It questions if Parliament can merge or abolish the three branches of the state or transfer core judicial powers to another body. It further questions the limits of parliamentary power. This includes whether it could theoretically abolish the executive, replace the democratic system, or grant itself a life-long mandate.
Read: Five IHC Justices Challenge CJ Dogar’s Order in Supreme Court
The judges grounded their argument in established jurisprudence. They noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that undermines its fundamental structure. They emphasised that Parliament derives its authority from the 1973 Constitution. It does not function as a constituent assembly with unlimited powers to reshape the state’s foundational framework.
This legal challenge originates from a June 2025 ruling by the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench. The ruling upheld the transfers of several high court judges as lawful. The five IHC judges subsequently filed an intra-court appeal challenging this decision. Their appeal has now become the subject of this jurisdictional dispute following the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court.
