13 out of 17 judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Supreme Court has intrinsic powers to review the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment. While the “basic structure” doctrine had been argued before the courts since the late 1980s, this is the first time that it has recieved overwhelming judicial recognition. In a 900 page judgement (beating the length of the judgment in Kesavananda Bharti) the majority of judges upheld the constitutionality of the 18th and 21st amendments to the Pakistan constitution. Upholding the constitutionality of an impugned amendment while asserting their right to review has been a fairly common feature of the initial basic structure cases in India as well. Interestingly, the identified salient features include parliamentary democracy and judicial independence, but omit any reference to Islam.
The 18th amendment had laid down a new procedure of judicial appointmens while the 21st amendment was enacted following the Peshawar school massacre to set up a series of military courts to try cases involving terrorism.
With this decision, Pakistan joins Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and India in recognizing intrinsic limits to amendment powers. Given the history of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the arrogation of veto powers over the constitution has divided opinion. Some critiques can be found here (Babbar Sattar), here (Ejaz Haider). The judgment itself is available here
The first part of this analysis delved into the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, where it misread the International Rule of Law (IRoL) by focusing on...
Blurb: A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, seeking the suspension of military exports from India to Israel in light of the unfolding armed conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author raised and...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author...
A fortnightly feature inspired by I-CONnect’s weekly “What’s New in Public Law” feature that addresses the lacuna of a one-stop-shop public law newsletter in the Indian legal...
A mass movement led by students has ushered in a new dawn in Bangladesh. What began as a claim for reform of the quota system transformed into a national movement to oust Bangladesh’s long-standing...