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
Summary: In this piece, we continue the discussion on Prof. Nivedita Menon’s latest book, Secularism as Misdirection: Critical Thought from the Global South. The summary of the book by Prof...
Blurb: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’s Section 104 revives the constitutional infirmities of the repealed Section 303 IPC, despite its ostensible reformist intent. By maintaining mandatory sentencing...
Blurb: This blog discusses the inadequacy of the current refugee law framework in addressing the pressing issue of climate refugees. It subsequently discusses the imminent need to develop regional...
Blurb: This blog discusses the inadequacy of the current refugee law framework in addressing the pressing issue of climate refugees. It subsequently discusses the imminent need to develop regional...
Blurb: The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test is scheduled to be reviewed by the Supreme Court of India. This piece highlights the inadequacies of the ERP Doctrine, and argues for a change...
Blurb: The article advocates extending euthanasia to non-terminally ill patients, emphasizing autonomy and dignity under Article 21. Critiquing current laws, it highlights ethical dilemmas and...