Islamabad (Web Desk): The National Assembly reconvened on Wednesday, where lawmakers were poised to take up the 27th Constitutional Amendment Bill for approval, a day after it was formally introduced by Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar.
The amendment, which aims to introduce major changes to Pakistan’s military and judicial systems, cleared the Senate on Monday with an overwhelming majority.
Sixty-four senators supported the bill in the 96-member chamber, while none opposed it as opposition members walked out, tore up copies of the legislation, and boycotted the proceedings in protest.
With the ruling coalition led by the Pakistan Muslim League- Nawaz (PML-N) holding a strong two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, the government appears confident of securing the bill’s passage.
The coalition includes 125 seats held by the PML-N, 74 by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), 22 by the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (Pakistan) (MQM-P), four each by the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) and the Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party (IPP), and one seat each by the Pakistan Muslim League-Zia (PML-Z), the Balochistan Awami Party, and the National Peoples Party.
The opposition, in comparison, commands 103 seats in the lower house.
During the Senate vote, support for the legislation extended beyond government benches, with Awami National Party (ANP) senators, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-backed Saifullah Abro, and JUI-F’s Ahmed Khan also voting in its favour. Abro’s decision to stay away from the opposition’s protest and his subsequent resignation from the Senate came as an unexpected turn.
On Tuesday, the National Assembly session began about thirty minutes late, starting with prayers for PML-N Senator Irfan Siddiqui, who had recently passed away after a short illness.
Federal Law Minister Senator Azam Nazeer Tarar presented the bill in the lower house of the Parliament, proposing major reforms to Pakistan’s judicial structure. The session witnessed intense uproar and protest from opposition benches as the bill was tabled.
Speaking on the floor of the House, the law minister stated that the bill had already been passed by the Senate with a two-thirds majority and described it as an essential step toward strengthening the country’s constitutional and judicial framework.
He explained that the proposed amendment seeks, among other things, to abolish the suo motu powers of the judiciary and to establish a clear mechanism for the transfer of judges.
The law minister termed the legislation a move toward ensuring stability within Pakistan’s judicial and constitutional system.
He noted that in most democratic countries, constitutional matters are handled by specialized constitutional courts, while judges are appointed through judicial commissions.
Referring to the Charter of Democracy, the minister said that reinforcing the constitutional order had long been a shared political objective, and this amendment is aligned with that vision.
The minister maintained that the frequent use of suo motu powers in the past had adversely impacted state affairs, arguing that the proposed amendment would introduce a transparent process to prevent unnecessary judicial intervention.
He further elaborated on another key aspect of the bill—judicial transfers. Under the existing Article 200, the President has the authority to transfer High Court judges.
However, under the new proposal, this power would be vested in the Judicial Commission, which would make such decisions independently. Any judge refusing a transfer would be deemed retired.
Another major provision in the bill calls for the establishment of a Constitutional Court to exclusively hear constitutional cases.
Tarar said that this reform would ease the heavy caseload of the Supreme Court, which currently faces more than 62,000 civil cases.
Addressing another matter, the law minister also discussed appointments to top military positions, emphasizing that such appointments must remain within constitutional limits.
He said that the rank of Field Marshal, considered an honorary title worldwide, should also be defined within the constitutional framework.
The government has backed the amendment, portraying it as a step toward judicial clarity and accountability.
However, opposition parties have strongly objected to the move, claiming that the government introduced the bill without adequate consultation and debate, raising concerns about the transparency of the process.