EVERY few years, questions regarding the limitations of parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, and the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to review, and if necessary, strike down constitutional amendments, become issues of great public interest.

This time around, these questions are being raised in response to the 26th Constitutional Amendment, and expectations that the Supreme Court should strike down certain changes for violating the principle of the independence of the judiciary.

The Constitution itself appears clear on the matter: Article 239(5) and (6) expressly state “no amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever”, and even more categorically, “for the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that there is no limitation whatever on the power of the Majlis-i-Shoora (parliament) to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution”.

Before 2015, the Supreme Court considered the scope and meaning of Article 239(5) and (6) in multiple judgments, but did not reach a definitive conclusion. This changed in 2015, when a full-court bench of the Supreme Court heard petitions challenging the 21st Amendment to the Constitution together with the challenge to the 18th Amendment, which had been pending since 2010.

A majority of 13 judges of the Supreme Court found parliament’s powers to amend the Constitution are limited, and it is the Supreme Court — the “guardian of the Constitution” — that would determine what those limitations are, and if they are transgressed, have the power to strike them down. The judges, however, suggested a number of different interpretations on the precise content and source of........

© Dawn