KARACHI: The National Assembly on Wednesday passed the Constitution (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Bill, 2025, introducing significant changes to the version earlier approved by the Senate.
The revised bill refines the framework for the newly created Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), clarifies the titles and hierarchy of the country's top judges and omits several clauses from the Senate draft that had proposed oath-related changes across multiple constitutional offices.
The amendments were adopted by the house after the treasury benches endorsed them through a majority vote.
One of the most notable revisions concerns Clause 2, which amends Article 6(2A) of the constitution — the article dealing with high treason. The National Assembly’s version inserts the words "Federal Constitutional Court’" after "the", thereby bringing the newly established court explicitly within the scope of Article 6. The Senate version had not named the new court.
The lower house also added a new Clause 2A, amending Article 10(4) of the constitution, which pertains to preventive detention. The amendment adds the words "Supreme Court" in the explanatory clause.
At the same time, the National Assembly removed several provisions that had been part of the Senate-approved draft. Clauses 4, 19, 51 and 55 — which collectively sought to alter the wording of oaths taken by various constitutional officeholders — were omitted in the final version.
Clause 4 had sought to amend Article 42, which requires the president to take an oath before the chief justice of Pakistan. The proposed change would have replaced "chief justice of Pakistan" with "chief justice of the Federal Constitutional Court".
Similarly, Clause 19 aimed to amend Article 168, which governs the appointment and oath of the auditor-general of Pakistan. The amendment would have inserted the words "Supreme Court" before "chief justice of Pakistan", slightly modifying the formal language of the oath.
Clause 51 proposed a comparable amendment to Article 214, under which the chief election commissioner must take an oath before the chief justice. The Senate draft would have changed this reference to "chief justice of the Federal Constitutional Court".
Lastly, Clause 55 sought to amend Article 255(2), which covers cases where an oath cannot be made before the designated person.
Currently, the chief justice of Pakistan may nominate an alternative person; the Senate version would have replaced this with the chief justice of the Federal Constitutional Court.
All of these oath-related provisions were ultimately dropped by the National Assembly.
Talking to The News, Barrister Ali Tahir says that most of the amendments to the Senate-finalised 27th Amendment "are cosmetic in nature. In a few places, they have only added references they had earlier missed — for example, inserting a mention of the Federal Constitutional Court in Article 6. But beyond these minor corrections, the most significant change appears to be one that seems to have been made.... [regarding] the current chief justice of Pakistan".
A major change was also made to Clause 23, which amends Article 176, a new proviso ensuring that "notwithstanding anything contained in the constitution, the incumbent chief justice shall be and continue to be known as the chief justice of Pakistan during his term in office".
Barrister Tahir explains: "the position of the 'CJP' will now belong to whichever of the two, the chief justice of the Federal Constitutional Court or the chief justice of the Supreme Court, happens to be more senior".
Another significant addition came under Clause 56, which now defines the "CJP" as "the senior amongst the chief justice of the Federal Constitutional Court and the chief justice of SC". This establishes a formal seniority rule between the two top judicial heads.
To Tahir, this means that, "for now, Justice Afridi will continue as the chief justice of Pakistan". For the future, though, says Tahir, "the amendment gives the government the discretion to decide who becomes the chief justice of Pakistan, depending on whether it chooses the senior-most judge for the Federal Constitutional Court or for the Supreme Court".
According to Tahir, "in essence, the entire set of amendments seems tailored to serve this one purpose... Such person-specific constitutional changes have no place in a civilised system".