Skip to main content

Archival Project No.1

This project documents the judicial events that led to the unprecedented enactment of the judiciary-related provisions in the Pseudo-Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024 (“26th Constitutional Amendment”), as well as the Constitution (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Act, 2025 (“27th Constitutional Amendment”).
1. Judgement dated: 23-10-2023 in C.P. No. 24 of 2023 & Others:
This judgement declared certain provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, & related armed forces laws, as unconstitutional, which led to the declaration that civilians cannot be tried through court martial under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. This historic and landmark majority judgement is authored by Justice Munib Akhtar, and a separate note is authored by Justice Ayesha Malik.

We consider this judgement as the foundational step leading ultimately to the passage of the Pseudo 26th Constitutional Amendment to counter this Military Trials judgement.

This judgement was set aside through the judgement dated 07-05-2025 in the Intra-Court Appeal (‘ICA’) by a Constitutional Bench formed as a result of the 26th Constitutional Amendment. In relation to the ICA judgement, two judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, namely Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan, bravely dissented by dismissing the ICAs for their own particular reasons.
J. Munib Akhtar_Judgement in the Military Courts Case J. Ayesha Malik_Additional Note in the Military Courts Case J. Jamal Khan Mandokhail_ Dissent in ICA of the Military Courts Case ICA Short Order in the Military Courts Case
2. Letter dated 25-03-2024 of six (6) judges of the Islamabad High Court:
This letter documents the role of the intelligence agencies in interfering with the independence of the judiciary.

We consider this letter to be historically unprecedented because it, for the first time, documents the threats and intimidation of the intelligence agencies, which subvert the independence of the judiciary, whereas in the past, such stories have only been part of the oral tradition of our judicial history.

Letter of the 6 Judges of the Islamabad High Court against intimidation and interference
3.The Supreme Court of Pakistan initiated Suo Motu No. 1 of 2024:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan initiated Suo Motu No. 1 of 2024 on the basis of the above-mentioned letter from the six (6) judges of the Islamabad High Court. This led the various High Courts to file reports documenting the intelligence agencies’ interference with judicial independence in their respective courts.
Initial Order Suo Moto No.1 of 2024 J. Athar Minallah’s Note in Suo Motu Case No.1 of 2024 Latest Order Suo Motu Case No.1 of 2024 Report by the Balochistan High Court pursuant to Suo Motu Case No.1 Report by the Islamabad High Court pursuant to Suo Motu Case No.1 Report by the Lahore High Court pursuant to Suo Motu Case No.1 Report by Peshawar High Court pursuant to Suo Motu Case No.1 Report by Sindh High Court pursuant to Suo Motu Case No.1
4. Judgement dated 13-01-2024 in C.P No. 42 of 2024, authored by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa:
This is the judgement which created major judicial obstacles in the holding of a free and fair election on February 8th, 2024, because it denied the election symbol to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (‘PTI’) for these elections.
J. Qazi Faez Isa_ Judgement in the Election Symbols Case
5. Judgement dated 12-07-2024 in C.A. No. 333 of 2024 and Others – The majority judgement authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah:
One of the consequences of the above-mentioned Supreme Court judgement denying the election symbol to the PTI was the denial of reserved seats to PTI under, inter alia, Article 51(6)(d) and (e), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. This judgement sought to rectify the unfairness of the general elections by restoring the reserved seats for women and non-Muslims according to the share of PTI-affiliated independent candidates in the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies.

We consider this judgement as a major step towards the passage of the pseudo 26th Amendment Act as a counter-measure because a completely new bench of 13 judges was formed to hear the review petitions against the aforementioned judgement in the reserved seats case, which new bench only contained three judges (minus also the two author judges) who formed the majority in the reserved seats case.

Moreover, in a completely unprecedented manner, the review petitions were ultimately heard by only 10 members who set aside the original judgement in the reserved seats case, which was passed by a 13-member bench.
J. Mansoor Ali Shah_Judgement in the Reserved Seats Case Short Order in Review of the Reserved Seats Case J. Salahuddin Panhwar_Recusal from the Reserved Seats Case J. Jamal Khan Mandokhail_ Judgment in Review of the Reserved Seats Case J. Ayesha Malik_ Review of the Reserved Seats Case
6. Pseudo-Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024:
This 26th Constitutional Amendment stripped the judiciary of its independence, particularly through the formation of Constitutional Benches in the Supreme Court and the High Courts, whose composition was dominated by the executive and executive inclined members and by not appointing the dissenting Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, the senior most justice, as the Chief Justice of Pakistan.
26th Constitutional Amendment
7. Judgement dated 19-06-2025 in C.P. No. 22 of 2025 and Others - The majority judgement authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and the dissenting judgements authored by Justice Shakeel Ahmad and Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan:
The majority judgement authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and the dissenting judgements authored by Justice Shakeel Ahmad and Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan: In view of the aforementioned unprecedented dissent by six judges of the Islamabad High Court exposing interference by intelligence agencies in the independence of the judiciary, and as a consequence of the denial of the Chief Justiceship of Pakistan to the dissenting Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, due to the passage of the pseudo 26th Amendment Act, there was a virtual takeover of the Islamabad High Court by transferring three judges from other High Courts, including Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, to the Islamabad High Court and illegally installing Justice Dogar as the Acting Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court. These transfers, as well as the denial of seniority to senior dissenting judges of the Islamabad High Court by unlawfully conferring seniority upon Justice Dogar, were challenged before the Supreme Court. By a majority of 3–2, the challenge to the transfer of these judges was dismissed, and the issue of seniority was sent for determination to the President of Pakistan (instead of the superior judiciary), which resulted in Justice Dogar becoming the permanent Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court. The two powerful dissenting judgements by Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad completely expose this executive takeover of the Islamabad High Court, and these dissenting judgements stand out as the finest examples of judicial independence.

We consider this judgement as a major step towards the passage of the pseudo 27th Amendment Act as a counter-measure because this Amendment made such transfers non-consensual and also made drastic changes in the determination of seniority upon transfer of judges.

Short Order in Islamabad High Court Transfer Case J. Shakeel Ahmad_Dissent in the Islamabad High Court Transfer Case J. Naeem Akhtar Afghan_Dissent in the Islamabad High Court Transfer Case
8. The constitutionality of the 26th Constitutional Amendment was challenged before the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in C.P. No. 45 of 2024 and Others:
Although the petitions were filed immediately before and after the enactment of the 26th Constitutional Amendment but they were belatedly fixed months after on 27/01/2025, on which date notices were issued. These petitions then disappeared into a blackhole and were not fixed until 07/10/2025. At the time of the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, detailed arguments were being heard by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court on whether a full court should be formed, comprising all judges of the Supreme Court, to hear these petitions or whether it should only be heard by the judges nominated on the Constitutional Bench.

We consider the challenge posed by these petitions to be the final straw in the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment.

9. Letters dated: 08-11-2025 from Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah & Letter dated: 13-11-2025 from Justice Salahuddin Panhwar:
These letters sought, inter alia, a meeting of the full court of the Supreme Court to respond to the imminent passage of the pseudo 27th Constitutional Amendment. In this regard, a letter dated 09-11-2025 from senior lawyers and retired judges, and a letter dated 10-11-2025 from former law clerks of the Supreme Court, also sought a full court meeting of the Supreme Court for the same purpose. We consider these letters as the last attempt to persuade the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Yahya Khan Afridi, to give a collective response to the pseudo 27th Constitutional Amendment, but he did not act.
J. Mansoor Ali Shah_Letter for Full Court Formation J. Athar Minallah_Letter for Full Court Formation J. Salahuddin Panhwar_Letter for Full Court Formation Letter from senior lawyers and retired judges Law Clerks_Letter for Full Court Formation
10. Pseudo-Constitution (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Act, 2025:
This represented the fatal assault on the independence of the judiciary by establishing a Constitutional Court that reduced the Supreme Court of Pakistan to a subordinate court, allowed the executive to create its own highest constitutional court i.e. Federal Constitutional Court, entrenched the executive control of the appointment of Superior Court judges and introduced non-consensual transfer of High Court judges.
27th Constitutional Amendment
11. Resignation Letters dated: 13-11-2025 of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah as Judges of the Supreme Court and the resignation letter of Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza as a Judge of the Lahore High Court:
All three resignations were in protest against the enactment of pseudo 27th Constitutional Amendment as the last act of constitutional courage against unconstitutional of all unconstitutional amendments.
J. Mansoor Ali Shah_Resignation J. Athar Minallah_Resignation J. Shams Mehmood Mirza_Resignation

Archival Project No.2

Tribute to Justice Shah, Justice Minallah, and Justice Mirza from the Lawyers and Citizens of Pakistan

(This tribute was published on the 2nd page in DAWN newspaper on 7th December 2025)

Tribute to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Athar Minallah, and

Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza from the Lawyers and Citizens of Pakistan


We mourn presently, not at the resignations of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Athar Minallah, and Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza – they have permanently etched their names in the short list of national heroes who prized principles over expediency – but at the demise of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and High Courts of Pakistan and the extinguishment of the last embers of an independent judiciary.
In his deep understanding of constitutional law, in his abiding commitment to the progressive, humanist and democratic values that embed our Constitution, in the succinct and clear articulation of his prose, in the unflinching courage, integrity and charisma of his judicial leadership; Justice Mansoor Ali Shah undisputedly ranks among the finest jurists ever produced by Pakistan. And he stood entirely peerless, in his zeal for judicial reform, and his vision to drag the creaking edifice of the Pakistani judiciary into the twenty-first century and transform it into an instrument for speedy justice for the common litigant. It is our judiciary’s and our nation’s misfortune we have chosen to sacrifice him at the altar of short-term political expediency and the desire for personal advancement of others.
No less, is the loss of Justice Minallah – a consistent voice for the weak and the disempowered. For the families of missing persons, for journalists muzzled by the State, for the opposition tormented by the government of the day, for judges hounded by intelligence agencies – he was a beacon of hope. He was one of the few judges possessed with sufficient self-awareness to be able to cast a critical eye on the judicial history of Pakistan. To be lauded by those on the receiving end of power, and criticized by those wielding it, is a distinction for the conscientious constitutional judge. Equally important is his unique contribution to transform the Islamabad High Court as a citadel of judicial independence, symbolized by the five dissenting judges of the Islamabad High Court. That will indeed be his legacy.
            Equally steadfast, Justice Shams Mirza leaves behind the enduring example of a judge who refused to let fundamental rights become casualties of turbulent times and became an anchor of constitutional steadiness. In his decisiveness and integrity, he neither courted controversy nor shied from difficult decisions. Known to allow reason, principle and pragmatism to guide his hand, he remained impervious to the forces that bend lesser judges to temptations and pressures of the political will. By choosing judicial defiance over judicial silence, he ensured that when history is written, his name will stand firmly on the side of constitutional courage as the only High Court judge who resigned in protest against the pseudo 27th Constitutional Amendment.
It is an irony of the times that they are castigated by the wielders of power, not for their own sins, but for earlier sins of those whom they resisted. Their fault lay in the steadfastness of their “no” when others were willing to change to a “yes”.
Their decision to preserve their constitutional oath and honour over office and privilege; to speak out instead of silently acquiescing to regression masquerading as reform; to stand instead of kneeling – is a spark to the conscience of a nation. As Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said, “when courts fall silent, societies descend into darkness”. But it is the candles they have lit that will illuminate the nation’s path through the dark times that befall us.



  Muneer A. Malik       Makhdoom Ali Khan       Justice (Rtd.) Mushir Alam          Faisal Siddiqi
 
 Akhtar Hussain          Kazim Hassan                  Arshad Siraj                  Anwar Mansoor Khan  
  
 Abid S. Zuberi           Khalid Javed Khan          Salman Talibuddin             Arshad M. Tayebaly
 Shahab Sarki             Ijaz Ahmed                       Zia ul Haq Makhdoom          Taha Alizai   
                                                                              
  Mushtaq A. Memon       Omer Soomro            Haq Nawaz Talpur            Malik Naeem Iqbal
  Haider Imam Rizvi       Tahmasp R. Razvi             Haseeb Jamali          Salahuddin Ahmed
 Ghulam Rehman Korai               Rabia Bajwa              Asad Rahim         Naveen Merchant
  Tariq Mehmood Khokar              Jibran Nasir              Imaan Mazari
   Riazat Ali Azad          Saqib Jilani                       Ravi Pinjani                    Salman Akram Raja
   Salman Khan Niazi     Rahib Khan Buledi           Hyder Ali Khan
   Zainab Janjua            Khwaja Ahmad Hosain     Sardar Latif Khosa            Najam Soharwardi
   Nazim F. Haji           Imtiaz Alam                     Professor Tariq Banuri          Dr Zafar Mirza             
   Fahim Zaman Khan       Tariq Khosa              Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar
   Dr. Farhan Hanif Siddiqui              Ammar Ali Jan               Zahid Hussein
                     
   Hafeez Ullah Niazi    Khalid Mahmood            Abbas Akberali         Professor S. Akber Zaidi
   Nadeem Khalid           Dr Riaz Ahmed              Dr Yaseer Kureshi          Nadir Cheema