As the world watches the Middle East descend into chaos, a quieter yet deeply consequential crisis unfolds within Pakistan’s judiciary. The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) recently approved a second extension for the Constitutional Bench under Justice Aminuddin Khan, now slated to continue until November 30. The decision, taken with little transparency, reflects a growing and alarming trend—one that casts a shadow over the independence, credibility, and legitimacy of the country’s highest court.
At the heart of this controversy lies a forceful letter by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, a senior member of the JCP, warning of the “eroding credibility” of the Supreme Court and the “shaken public confidence in its neutrality.” His concerns are neither new nor unsubstantiated. They speak to the heart of an institutional crisis in which executive influence appears to be tightening its grip over judicial affairs. According to Justice Shah, the court is at risk of “drifting under the control or convenience of the executive”—a troubling statement that underscores the fragility of the constitutional balance between the judiciary and the government.
The opacity of the JCP’s recent vote is itself problematic. If, as was the case during the previous extension, only one judge—Justice Aminuddin Khan—supported the continuation while others opposed it, serious questions arise about the rationale behind such decisions and the principles guiding them. Without transparency or consensus, the legitimacy of the Constitutional Bench and the decisions it renders become increasingly suspect.
Further compounding the issue is the unresolved constitutional status of the 26th Amendment, which Justice Shah aptly identifies as a “serious constitutional challenge.” Continuing with extensions or reappointments to a Bench whose legal foundation is under scrutiny only deepens the court’s crisis of legitimacy.
Moreover, the absence of objective criteria for nominating judges to the Bench fuels perceptions of bias and favoritism. Justice Shah’s suggestion that all Supreme Court justices be part of the Constitutional Bench deserves serious consideration. It would not only promote inclusivity but also prevent accusations of cherry-picking or ideological manipulation.
Unfortunately, there are signs that some stakeholders may prefer to preserve divisions within the Supreme Court to check its power and reduce its ability to challenge the executive. Such an approach is dangerous. A divided, weakened judiciary cannot safeguard constitutional order, nor can it maintain the public’s trust.
The Constitution demands an impartial and independent judiciary. To preserve democratic order and institutional integrity, the JCP must embrace transparency, fairness, and genuine reform. Without these, Pakistan’s constitutional framework may continue its slow and silent collapse.