Top court bold start sparks 1 major dispute over selection rules
Top court bold start: New Federal Constitutional Court sparks controversy and debate
Pakistan’s newly created Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) officially began its work on Friday after the chief justice and four judges took oath. But what was supposed to be a historic day quickly turned into a storm of criticism, boycotts, and unanswered questions. Instead of a smooth transition, the event turned into a Top court bold start filled with uncertainty.
The biggest shock came from the Islamabad High Court (IHC), where five senior judges boycotted the oath-taking ceremony. Their absence not only raised eyebrows but also triggered a national conversation about the criteria used to appoint FCC judges. Many legal experts and public voices are asking the same question: Was this Top court bold start based on merit, or did other influences guide the choices?
Seniority and merit under the spotlight
Critics argue that if seniority had been the main standard, most of the appointed FCC judges would not have been on the list. Only Justice Aminuddin Khan, who has been appointed as the FCC chief justice, meets the seniority expectation. The rest of the appointments appear to bypass long-standing norms, turning this Top court bold start into a point of controversy rather than celebration.
Many experts refer to the famous Al-Jihad Trust judgment of 1996, which emphasized transparency and merit in judicial appointments to secure public trust. The new FCC’s formation seems to deviate from that spirit, adding to the suspicion surrounding this new judicial structure.
Questions about constitutional expertise
Observers also highlight that if constitutional expertise had been the key criteria, the current panel would have looked very different. Most newly appointed judges are not known for handling constitutional matters or for writing landmark constitutional judgments. Justice Aminuddin Khan is again the only exception.
This further complicates the perception of this Top court bold start, making many wonder if the selection was influenced by political comfort rather than legal competence.
A divided ceremony and unusual atmosphere
The oath-taking ceremonies themselves reflected the deep divide. At the Islamabad High Court, not a single Supreme Court judge attended — including Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi. Five IHC judges remained absent, giving the event an atmosphere of discomfort rather than prestige.
To add to the confusion, seven chairs were initially placed for dignitaries at the ceremony stage, but four were later removed. The event started late, adding to the sense that this Top court bold start was happening under awkward and unplanned conditions.
More judges expected to join
Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan later hinted that the FCC may eventually include up to 13 judges. This suggests that the Top court bold start is not a completed setup but an ongoing process that may see more changes and appointments in the coming days.
Concerns about impartiality
For many senior lawyers, the biggest fear is the perception that judges may have been chosen based on their closeness to the government or their willingness to follow its direction. If this perception grows, the FCC may struggle with credibility from the very beginning.
Legal observers warn that any court suspected of partiality loses moral authority. This is why many see this as a risky Top court bold start, potentially laying the foundation for further mistrust in Pakistan’s judicial structure.
Resignations raise the stakes
The earlier resignations of two Supreme Court judges — who cited concerns about the 27th Amendment — further amplified the controversy. Their departure created public doubt long before the FCC even began functioning. Many experts say that this controversial Top court bold start has created confusion inside the judiciary and tension among legal institutions.
Former Additional Attorney General Tariq Mehmood Khokhar went as far as calling the day “the death rites of the existing constitutional order,” arguing that the new structure sidelines the Supreme Court by making the FCC more powerful.
He highlighted that an unelected executive pushed an unelected parliament to pass the amendment, giving the FCC powers that traditionally belonged to the Supreme Court. According to him, this Top court bold start marks a dangerous shift in judicial control.
Nationwide debate gaining momentum
The FCC’s beginning has triggered a heated national debate. Supporters claim it will help reduce the backlog and speed up constitutional cases. But critics argue that the 27th Amendment weakens the Supreme Court — something that could have long-term consequences for judicial independence.
Some analysts believe this Top court bold start could deepen tensions between different power centers in the country. Others fear it might lead to more political interference in judicial matters.
Despite the controversy, the government maintains that the FCC is a step toward reform.
What comes next for the FCC?
There is no doubt that the FCC’s establishment marks a new chapter in Pakistan’s judicial history. But the chapter has opened with more questions than answers. Even supporters admit that this Top court bold start is surrounded by confusion and criticism.
Now, the largest test begins:
Can the FCC prove its neutrality and competence?
Can it justify the reasons behind its creation?
And can it win public trust in a climate full of skepticism?
The future of this new court will depend heavily on its early decisions and conduct. If it fails to demonstrate fairness, the doubts surrounding this Top court bold start will only grow stronger.
What remains clear is that the Top court bold start will shape Pakistan’s judicial direction — and its effects will be felt long into the future.
