Pakistan’s judiciary has long played a pivotal role in its constitutional evolution, addressing human rights cases and complex political disputes. Recently, debates about judicial reform have intensified, with calls for greater accountability, transparency, and specialization. One such proposal is the establishment of a Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), modeled after the Federal Shariat Court, to focus exclusively on constitutional interpretation. This would alleviate the Supreme Court’s growing burden and ensure a more specialized approach to constitutional matters.

The Federal Shariat Court, established in 1980, reviews laws to ensure they comply with Islamic injunctions. Its success in handling religious legal matters demonstrates that Pakistan’s legal system can accommodate specialized courts. Given this precedent, a Federal Constitutional Court focused on constitutional law could enhance judicial efficiency. It would interpret the Constitution, handle constitutional challenges, and resolve disputes involving fundamental rights, allowing the Supreme Court to focus on its original mandate of civil and criminal appeals.

The Supreme Court is currently overwhelmed by a backlog of civil and criminal cases, compounded by its increasing focus on high-profile political matters, such as party disputes and electoral conflicts. This shift in focus has hindered the Court’s ability to deliver timely justice for ordinary citizens. A Federal Constitutional Court would restore balance by allowing the Supreme Court to prioritize regular legal matters while a specialized body handles constitutional cases.

Judicial transfers are also key to maintaining accountability. Stationing judges in one location for too long, especially in politically significant areas, opens the door to favoritism and influence. Regular transfers prevent judges from becoming entrenched in local networks, ensuring impartiality and fairness. Arguments against transfers in the name of stability can undermine equal justice, as judges may build long-term allegiances that conflict with their duty.

One key advantage of a Federal Constitutional Court is enhanced accountability. Currently, higher court judges rule on constitutional matters without specialized training in constitutional law. An FCC, composed of jurists with deep expertise in constitutional theory, would ensure decisions are based on sound legal reasoning. This specialization would reduce arbitrary rulings and hold judges to a higher standard of legal reasoning.

Decentralizing judicial power through an FCC would relieve the Supreme Court’s overwhelming caseload. The FCC would focus on constitutional interpretation, allowing the Supreme Court to handle broader legal issues more efficiently. This separation would create a more effective judicial system, with each court operating within its respective sphere.

While political opposition to the creation of an FCC is likely, particularly from parties that rely on the Supreme Court to challenge government actions, the proposal is not aimed at restricting political influence. Rather, it seeks to streamline judicial processes and improve the judiciary’s overall function. Concerns that the FCC would marginalize certain political factions are misplaced, as the goal is to enhance the judiciary’s efficiency for the benefit of all citizens.

However, the drafting of the Constitution (26th Amendment) Bill, which would establish the FCC, raises concerns. Constitutional amendments are significant changes that shape governance for decades, requiring deep analysis and thorough debate. Rushing such an amendment risks unintended consequences that could destabilize the legal system. Comprehensive engagement with legal experts, stakeholders, and broader national discourse is necessary to ensure the proposed changes truly strengthen justice and democracy.

Zaafir Khan Tareen
The writer is an Advocate of the High Court and a politician from Haripur, KPK.