CSS Prepare

compulsory · CSS study notes

XXVII. The Recent Constitutional and Legal Debates

📂 START HERE — How This Page Is Organised

No child pages here — read the sections below in order, then the solved past papers at the end.

📺 Directly Relevant YouTube Lecture Sources

📖 Study outline

  1. Overview
  2. Key Amendments Since 2015
  3. 27th Amendment — Strengthens or Weakens Constitutionalism? (CSS 2026, Q4)
  4. Key facts to cite
  5. Arguments that it STRENGTHENS constitutionalism (government's case)
  6. Arguments that it WEAKENS constitutionalism and rule of law (critics' case)
  7. Suggested stance (balanced, defensible)
  8. Reforms to suggest in the conclusion
  9. Answer structure (20 marks)
  10. Important Legislations & Cases (2017–2026)
  11. Role of Higher Courts
  12. Exam Angle
  13. Further Reading
  14. ✍️ Model Answer (20 marks)
  15. Outline

CSS answer method: introduce an evidence-based thesis, analyse the mechanisms, weigh contrary views, and distinguish legal texts from commentary. Use the related FPSC questions for practice.

Overview

  • Syllabus focus:
    • latest constitutional amendments
    • important legislation and cases
    • the role of the higher judiciary
  • Covers 2010 onwards, with emphasis on 2022–2026.
  • For older debates (doctrine of necessity, system of government, Islam), see Ch14 and the 18th Amendment analysis.

Key Amendments Since 2015

  • 21st Amendment (2015) — created military courts to try civilians in terrorism cases for a sunset period; upheld by the Supreme Court in the District Bar Association, Rawalpindi case despite basic-structure objections.
  • 26th Amendment (October 2024) — the most consequential judicial-reform amendment since the 18th:
    • Restructured the Judicial Commission of Pakistan to include parliamentarians (2 Senators + 2 MNAs, treasury and opposition) alongside judges, formalizing a legislative/executive role in judicial appointments.
    • Chief Justice of Pakistan now chosen by the Prime Minister from the three most senior Supreme Court judges (on recommendation of a Special Parliamentary Committee), not automatically the senior-most judge; CJP tenure capped at three years.
    • Created dedicated Constitutional Benches in the Supreme Court and High Courts to hear constitutional matters, with members nominated by the Judicial Commission.
    • Curtailed suo motu jurisdiction — courts can no longer act beyond the contents of a filed application.
    • Introduced annual performance evaluation of High Court judges by the Judicial Commission.
    • Criticised by bar councils and the ICJ: more executive control over who becomes, and stays, a judge.
  • 27th Amendment (November 2025) — went further still:
    • Abolished the Supreme Court's original constitutional jurisdiction, transferring constitutional and federal–provincial dispute cases to a new Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan.
    • Abolished the post of Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee; expanded the Chief of Army Staff's role into a unified Chief of Defence Forces, with lifetime rank, privileges and status for officers reaching Field Marshal/Marshal/Admiral of the Fleet rank.
    • Adjusted provincial cabinet-size and NFC-related provisions, and revisited federal-provincial responsibility for subjects such as education and population planning.
    • Criticised (Chatham House, ConstitutionNet) for entrenching executive and military dominance and eroding 18th Amendment gains; lawyers' strikes followed.
    • Exam note: treat the 26th and 27th as a pair:
      • 26th → power shifts to the executive and parliament
      • 27th → power shifts to the military and executive

27th Amendment — Strengthens or Weakens Constitutionalism? (CSS 2026, Q4)

Key facts to cite

  • Passed by the Senate (10 November 2025) and National Assembly, signed by President Zardari on 13 November 2025.
  • Created the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) with judges from all provinces; constitutional cases and suo motu powers (now only on petition) moved from the Supreme Court to the FCC. Justice Aminuddin Khan sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the FCC.
  • First FCC Chief Justice and judges appointed by the President on the PM's advice; later chief justices of both the FCC and Supreme Court chosen by a special parliamentary committee from among serving judges.
  • Created the post of Chief of Defence Forces; abolished the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee; lifetime rank for Field Marshal and equivalent ranks.
  • Resignations in protest: Supreme Court Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah, and Lahore High Court Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza. Justice Shah called it a "grave assault on the Constitution".

Arguments that it STRENGTHENS constitutionalism (government's case)

  • Specialised constitutional court is a global norm (Germany, Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia) and was promised in the Charter of Democracy (2006) signed by the PPP and PML-N.
  • Reduces backlog: frees the Supreme Court to decide tens of thousands of pending ordinary appeals.
  • Curbs judicial overreach: history of suo motu activism (Chaudhry era), disqualification of elected PMs (Panama 2017), rewriting Article 63-A (2022) — restores parliamentary supremacy.
  • Provincial parity on the FCC strengthens federalism in constitutional adjudication.
  • Defence reform: a unified command (CDF) suits modern multi-domain warfare, drawing lessons from the May 2025 conflict with India.
  • Passed by the required two-thirds majority through the constitutional amendment process (Article 239) — procedurally lawful.

Arguments that it WEAKENS constitutionalism and rule of law (critics' case)

  • Separation of powers eroded: executive and parliamentary majority now control who sits on and heads the top courts, with no prescribed criteria — against Article 175(3) and the spirit of the Al-Jihad Trust case (1996).
  • Rights enforcement diluted: Article 184(3) public-interest jurisdiction, used to protect fundamental rights, is moved to a court whose composition the executive shapes.
  • Basic structure doctrine: in the District Bar Association Rawalpindi case (2015) the Supreme Court held that judicial independence is a salient feature of the Constitution; the amendment removes the Supreme Court's ability to review this.
  • Military entrenchment: constitutionalising the CDF and lifetime ranks deepens the military's formal role, contradicting civilian supremacy.
  • Process concerns: rushed passage, limited debate, opposition protests; follows the 26th Amendment (2024) as part of a pattern.
  • Institutional costs: resignations of senior judges, bar association strikes, and criticism from Chatham House, the ICJ and rights groups damage public trust.
  • Federalism: reopened provincial subjects (education, population planning) and NFC provisions settled by the 18th Amendment.

Suggested stance (balanced, defensible)

  • The idea of a constitutional court is sound.
  • Its design is the problem:
    • executive control over appointments
    • no criteria
    • entrenched military power
  • On balance, it weakens the rule of law in the short term.

Reforms to suggest in the conclusion

  • Transparent appointment criteria with a judicial majority in the Judicial Commission.
  • Parliamentary hearings for nominees (as in the US or South Africa).
  • Guaranteed tenure and non-transferability of judges without consent.
  • A review of the amendment after an agreed period, through all-party consensus.

Answer structure (20 marks)

  1. Introduction — define constitutionalism (limited government, separation of powers, judicial review) and state your stance.
  2. Background — 18th → 26th → 27th Amendment.
  3. Key provisions.
  4. Arguments for "strengthens".
  5. Arguments for "weakens" (give more weight here if that is your stance).
  6. Comparative lens — other constitutional courts and how they are appointed.
  7. Way forward.
  8. Conclusion.

Important Legislations & Cases (2017–2026)

  • Panama Papers case (2017) — disqualified PM Nawaz Sharif under Article 62(1)(f); entrenched judicial willingness to disqualify sitting executives.
  • Faizabad Dharna case — Supreme Court held state institutions, including intelligence agencies, accountable for facilitating an unconstitutional sit-in; a touchstone for civil–military relations jurisprudence.
  • Article 63-A interpretation case (2022) — Supreme Court ruled defecting lawmakers' votes on key measures (PM election, no-confidence, money/constitutional bills) could not be counted, tightening anti-defection law; later partly revisited by Parliament and the courts.
  • Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 — curtailed the Chief Justice's unilateral suo motu and bench-forming powers, requiring a committee of senior judges — a precursor to the 26th Amendment's Constitutional Bench model.
  • Justice Qazi Faez Isa reference case — a presidential reference against a sitting judge, widely seen as a test of judicial independence from executive pressure.

Role of Higher Courts

  • Judicial review is still the core check on the legislature and executive.
  • Its scope has narrowed:
    • suo motu curbed
    • original constitutional jurisdiction moved to the FCC
  • Ongoing tension: independence vs accountability (delays, past overreach).

Exam Angle

  • Fast-moving and high-yield — write "as of the latest information".
  • Common question: impact of the 26th and 27th Amendments on judicial independence.
  • Balanced structure:
    1. official rationale — delays, overreach, accountability
    2. criticism — executive and military capture
    3. a reform-oriented, even-handed verdict

Further Reading

  • Ch14. Constitutional Debate — doctrine of necessity, parliamentary vs presidential system, Islam and the constitution.
  • Analysis of 18th Amendment — the pre-2015 federalism and judicial-appointment baseline these later amendments build on.

✍️ Model Answer (20 marks)

Question (CSS 2026): To what extent does the 27th Constitutional Amendment strengthen or weaken constitutionalism and the rule of law in Pakistan? Justify your stance with valid arguments.

Outline

  1. Introduction and stance
  2. Constitutionalism and the rule of law: concepts
  3. Background: 18th to 26th to 27th
  4. Key provisions of the 27th Amendment
  5. Arguments that it strengthens constitutionalism
  6. Arguments that it weakens constitutionalism
  7. Comparative perspective
  8. Way forward
  9. Conclusion

1. Introduction

  • Signed 13 November 2025 — the biggest restructuring since the 18th Amendment.
  • Created the FCC (taking the SC's constitutional jurisdiction) and the CDF post.
  • Supporters: overdue judicial reform. Critics (including two resigning SC judges): an assault on the Constitution.
  • Thesis: the idea is sound; the design weakens constitutionalism and the rule of law.

2. Concepts

  • Constitutionalism: power limited by a constitution through separation of powers and judicial review.
  • Rule of law (Dicey): everyone, including the government, is under the law; disputes go to independent courts.

3. Background

  • 18th Amendment (2010): restored parliamentary supremacy and created the Judicial Commission for appointments.
  • Judicial activism (2007–2022): suo motu actions, disqualification of Prime Ministers (2017), the Article 63-A ruling (2022).
  • Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023: limited the Chief Justice's powers.
  • 26th Amendment (October 2024): parliamentary members added to the Judicial Commission; the Chief Justice chosen by a parliamentary committee from the three most senior judges; constitutional benches; limits on suo motu.

4. Key Provisions of the 27th Amendment

  • A Federal Constitutional Court with judges from all provinces to hear constitutional cases and federal-provincial disputes; suo motu powers moved to it, exercised only on petition.
  • The first FCC Chief Justice and judges appointed by the President on the Prime Minister's advice; later chief justices chosen by a special parliamentary committee from serving judges, without prescribed criteria.
  • The post of Chief of Defence Forces created and that of Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee abolished; lifetime rank for Field Marshal and equivalent ranks.
  • Changes touching provincial subjects and NFC-related provisions.

5. Arguments That It Strengthens Constitutionalism

  1. A global model: specialised constitutional courts exist in Germany, Turkey, South Africa and Indonesia.
  2. A political consensus: the Charter of Democracy (2006), signed by the PPP and PML-N, promised a Federal Constitutional Court.
  3. Reducing backlog: the Supreme Court can focus on tens of thousands of pending ordinary appeals.
  4. Curbing judicial overreach: limits the activism that disqualified elected leaders and rewrote Article 63-A, restoring parliamentary supremacy.
  5. Provincial parity in constitutional adjudication strengthens federalism.
  6. Procedural legality: passed by a two-thirds majority under Article 239.
  7. Defence reform: a unified command suited to modern warfare, reflecting the lessons of May 2025.

6. Arguments That It Weakens Constitutionalism

  1. Separation of powers: the executive and the parliamentary majority now control who sits on and heads the top courts, with no criteria. This contradicts Article 175(3) and the spirit of the Al-Jihad Trust case (1996).
  2. Rights enforcement: the Supreme Court's Article 184(3) jurisdiction, used to protect fundamental rights, now lies with a court whose composition the executive shapes.
  3. Basic structure: in the District Bar Association Rawalpindi case (2015) the Supreme Court held judicial independence to be a salient feature of the Constitution. The amendment removes the Supreme Court's power to test this.
  4. Military entrenchment: constitutionalising the Chief of Defence Forces and lifetime ranks formalises the military's role, against the principle of civilian supremacy.
  5. Process: hurried passage, limited debate and opposition protests, part of a pattern begun with the 26th Amendment.
  6. Institutional costs: the resignations of Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah and of a Lahore High Court judge; strikes by lawyers; criticism from Chatham House, the ICJ and rights groups.
  7. Federalism: reopening subjects devolved by the 18th Amendment raises fears of recentralisation.

7. Comparative Perspective

  • Germany: two-thirds of both houses elect judges — forces cross-party consensus.
  • South Africa: an independent commission interviews candidates in public.
  • Pakistan: neither safeguard — so the design, not the concept, is the problem.

8. Way Forward

  • Transparent, published criteria for appointments, with a judicial majority in the Judicial Commission.
  • Public hearings for nominees, as in South Africa.
  • Security of tenure and no transfers without the judge's consent.
  • A cross-party review of the amendment after an agreed period.
  • Civilian oversight of the defence command through Parliament.

9. Conclusion

  • A real problem (overreach, delay) met with a legitimate tool (a constitutional court).
  • But concentrating appointments in the executive and entrenching the military weakens the checks constitutionalism needs.
  • On balance, it weakens the rule of law in the short term.
  • Its legacy depends on future reforms restoring judicial independence.

📝 CSS Past Papers 2014–2026 — This Chapter (Solved)

📊

Asked so far: 5 subjective questions (2017, 2018, 2019, 2022, 2026), three of them on centre-province relations and the 18th Amendment · 11 MCQs (2016, 2017, 2020 ×2, 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 ×3). Examiners often ask for article numbers.

2024–2026 MCQs are from the FPSC papers with original options. 2014–2023 MCQs come from published answer keys (the FPSC copies only contain Part-II), so their options are rewritten but the keyed answer is kept and checked.

Part-I — Past MCQs

1. (CSS 2016) The 21st Constitutional Amendment (2015) was passed to:

  • (A) Abolish the Concurrent List
  • (B) Establish military courts
  • (C) Merge FATA with KP
  • (D) Restore the 1973 Constitution
  • ✅ (B) Establish military courts — January 2015, after APS; two years; extended by the 23rd (2017).

2. (CSS 2017) The 18th Amendment was passed by the National Assembly on:

  • (A) 19 April 2010
  • (B) 8 April 2010
  • (C) 15 April 2010
  • (D) 31 March 2010
  • ✅ (B) 8 April 2010 (unanimous) — Senate 15 April; signed 19 April 2010.

3. (CSS 2020) The 18th Amendment became part of the Constitution (received assent) on:

  • (A) 8 April 2010
  • (B) 15 April 2010
  • (C) 19 April 2010
  • (D) 1 July 2011
  • ✅ (C) 19 April 2010 — learn all three: NA 8 April, Senate 15 April, assent 19 April.

4. (CSS 2021) How many members from both houses were on the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms that drafted the 18th Amendment?

  • (A) 26
  • (B) 22
  • (C) 30
  • (D) 18
  • ✅ (A) 26 — chaired by Raza Rabbani; all parties; about 102 articles changed.

5. (CSS 2020) FATA was merged into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through the:

  • (A) 24th Amendment
  • (B) 25th Amendment
  • (C) 26th Amendment
  • (D) 23rd Amendment
  • ✅ (B) 25th (May 2018) — ended FCR, repealed Art. 247. (24th, 2017: seat reallocation after the census.)

6. (CSS 2023) Supreme command of the armed forces of Pakistan vests in the:

  • (A) Prime Minister
  • (B) Chief of Army Staff
  • (C) President
  • (D) Chairman JCSC
  • ✅ (C) President — Art. 243(2); control and command lie with the Federal Government (243(1)).

7. (CSS 2024) No person shall be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court unless he has been a judge of a High Court for a period of:

  • (A) Five years
  • (B) Seven years
  • (C) Nine years
  • (D) Fifteen years
  • ✅ (A) Five years — Art. 177(2); or 15 years as a High Court advocate.

8. (CSS 2025) The lower age limit for a candidate contesting Senate elections is years.

  • (A) 30
  • (B) 35
  • (C) 25
  • (D) None of these
  • ✅ (A) 30 — Art. 62(1)(b). NA: 25; President: 45.

9. (CSS 2026) Article empowers the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights directly.

  • (A) 185(6)
  • (B) 187(2)
  • (C) Both A and B
  • (D) 184(3)
  • ✅ (D) 184(3) — basis of suo motu; moved to the FCC by the 27th Amendment (2025).

10. (CSS 2026) Which constitutional amendment generated debate about judicial reforms?

  • (A) 26th Amendment
  • (B) 27th Amendment
  • (C) Both (A) & (B)
  • (D) None of these
  • ✅ (C) Both:
    • 26th (Oct 2024): parliamentarians on the JCP, committee picks CJP, constitutional benches
    • 27th (Nov 2025): FCC and CDF

11. (CSS 2026) The establishment and structure of the Supreme Court is provided under Article :

  • (A) 63–64
  • (B) 99
  • (C) 176–191
  • (D) None of these
  • ✅ (C) 176–191 (Part VII, Ch. 2). Arts 62–63: MPs' qualifications; Art. 99: federal business.

Part-II — Past Subjective Questions

1. CSS 2017 Q3 — Discuss the role of judiciary in the constitutional development of Pakistan. (20)

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Judgments that legitimised unconstitutional rule
  3. Judgments that checked unconstitutional rule
  4. The period of judicial activism (2007 to 2022)
  5. Recent changes (2023 to 2025)
  6. Critical evaluation
  7. Conclusion

Answer

1. Introduction

  • Pakistan's superior courts have played a decisive part in its constitutional history. At times they have given legal cover to unconstitutional governments, and at other times they have stood firmly against them.

2. Judgments that legitimised unconstitutional rule

  • In the Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan case (1955), the Federal Court upheld the Governor General's dissolution of the first Constituent Assembly.
  • In the Dosso case (1958), Chief Justice Munir relied on Hans Kelsen's theory of "revolutionary legality" to validate martial law.
  • In the Nusrat Bhutto case (1977), the Supreme Court accepted General Zia's takeover under the doctrine of necessity.
  • In the Zafar Ali Shah case (2000), it validated General Musharraf's coup and even allowed him to amend the Constitution.

3. Judgments that checked unconstitutional rule

  • In the Asma Jilani case (1972), the Supreme Court overruled Dosso and described Yahya Khan as a usurper.
  • In the Benazir Bhutto case (1988), it required elections to be held on a party basis.
  • In the Nawaz Sharif case (1993), it restored the dissolved National Assembly.
  • In the Al-Jihad Trust case (1996), it laid down rules for the appointment of judges, including respect for seniority.
  • In the Sindh High Court Bar Association case (2009), it declared the emergency of November 2007 unconstitutional and put an end to the doctrine of necessity.

4. The period of judicial activism (2007 to 2022)

  • The Lawyers' Movement of 2007 to 2009 restored Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry.
  • The Supreme Court made wide use of its suo motu powers under Article 184(3).
  • It disqualified Prime Minister Gilani in 2012 and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 2017 in the Panama case.
  • In the District Bar Association Rawalpindi case (2015) it accepted that the Constitution has a basic structure.
  • In 2022 it gave a far-reaching interpretation of Article 63-A on defections.

5. Recent changes (2023 to 2025)

  • Parliament passed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act in 2023 to limit the powers of the Chief Justice.
  • The 26th Amendment (2024) and the 27th Amendment (2025) significantly reduced the judiciary's independence and transferred constitutional jurisdiction to a new Federal Constitutional Court.

6. Critical evaluation

  • Since 2009 the courts have strengthened fundamental rights and helped end the habit of validating coups.
  • Earlier decisions that legitimised military rule, and later episodes of judicial overreach in political matters, have damaged the judiciary's credibility.

7. Conclusion

  • Pakistan needs a judiciary that is independent enough to check every branch of the state and restrained enough to stay out of day-to-day politics. Such a balance is essential for constitutional stability.

Full 20-mark answer: CSS 2017 — Pakistan Affairs Paper (Solved)

2. CSS 2018 Q6 — Discuss the nature of centre-province relations under the 1973 Constitution. (20)

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Legislative relations
  3. Administrative relations
  4. Financial relations
  5. Institutions of coordination
  6. Emergency provisions
  7. Problems in centre-province relations
  8. Conclusion

Answer

1. Introduction

  • The 1973 Constitution set up a federal parliamentary system. In its original form it gave the centre wide powers, but the 18th Amendment of 2010 shifted the balance substantially in favour of the provinces.

2. Legislative relations

  • The Federal Legislative List, in two parts, sets out the subjects on which only Parliament can legislate.
  • The Concurrent List of 47 subjects, on which both levels could legislate, was abolished in 2010.
  • Under Article 142, all subjects not listed fall to the provinces.
  • Under Article 143, a federal law prevails if it conflicts with a provincial law on a federal subject.

3. Administrative relations

  • Article 148 requires provinces to exercise their executive authority in a way that complies with federal laws.
  • Under Article 149 the federal government can give certain directions to provinces.
  • Provincial Governors are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.

4. Financial relations

  • Under Article 160, the National Finance Commission decides how federal revenue is shared. The 7th NFC Award gave the provinces 57.5 per cent of the divisible pool.
  • Article 160(3A) forbids reducing the provinces' share below that of the previous award.
  • Article 167 allows provinces to borrow within limits.
  • Articles 158, 161 and 172(3) give provinces rights over gas, hydroelectric profits and oil and gas resources.

5. Institutions of coordination

  • The Council of Common Interests, under Articles 153 and 154, settles policy on shared subjects and must meet at least once every 90 days.
  • The National Economic Council under Article 156 reviews the country's economic plans.
  • Each province has equal representation in the Senate under Article 59.

6. Emergency provisions

  • Under Article 232, an emergency because of internal disturbance requires a resolution of the provincial assembly concerned.
  • Article 234 allows the President to take over a province's administration if its constitutional machinery breaks down.

7. Problems in centre-province relations

  • Smaller provinces complain of domination by Punjab.
  • NFC awards have been long delayed.
  • The Council of Common Interests has often met irregularly.
  • Water distribution remains a source of dispute.
  • Balochistan continues to feel that its resources benefit others more than itself.
  • The 27th Amendment has revived fears that powers will be taken back from the provinces.

8. Conclusion

  • The 1973 Constitution has moved from a strong centre towards cooperative federalism. Harmony between the centre and the provinces now depends less on the text of the Constitution than on how faithfully it is implemented.

Full 20-mark answer: CSS 2018 — Pakistan Affairs Paper (Solved)

3. CSS 2019 Q3 — How far has the nature of centre-province relations changed under various amendments to the 1973 Constitution? Evaluate. (20)

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. The original scheme of 1973
  3. The 8th Amendment (1985)
  4. The 13th Amendment (1997)
  5. The 17th Amendment (2003)
  6. The 18th Amendment (2010) and the 7th NFC Award
  7. The 25th Amendment (2018)
  8. The 26th and 27th Amendments
  9. Evaluation
  10. Conclusion

Answer

1. Introduction

  • Since 1973 the balance between the centre and the provinces has shifted several times through constitutional amendments. Some of these concentrated power at the centre, while others gave more autonomy to the provinces.

2. The original scheme of 1973

  • The Constitution created a strong centre with a long Concurrent List and a system built around the Prime Minister.

3. The 8th Amendment (1985)

  • Article 58-2(b) allowed the President to dismiss the federal government, and Article 112(2)(b) allowed Governors to dissolve provincial assemblies.
  • These powers were used to dismiss governments in 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1996, and they kept the provinces dependent on the centre.

4. The 13th Amendment (1997)

  • It removed the President's power under Article 58-2(b) and the Governors' discretionary power to dissolve assemblies.

5. The 17th Amendment (2003)

  • It restored the President's power to dismiss governments, subject to review by the Supreme Court.

6. The 18th Amendment (2010) and the 7th NFC Award

  • The Concurrent List was abolished, and 17 federal ministries were devolved to the provinces.
  • The Council of Common Interests was given its own secretariat and required to meet every 90 days.
  • Article 172(3) made oil and gas the joint property of the federation and the province where they are found.
  • An emergency because of internal disturbance now needs the consent of the provincial assembly.
  • Article 140-A required provinces to set up elected local governments.
  • The North-West Frontier Province was renamed Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and the scope for imposing Governor's rule was limited.
  • At about the same time, the 7th NFC Award raised the provinces' share of the divisible pool from 47.5 to 57.5 per cent and introduced criteria other than population.

7. The 25th Amendment (2018)

  • It merged the former tribal areas into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

8. The 26th and 27th Amendments

  • The 27th Amendment of 2025 reopened some questions about devolved subjects and federal-provincial finance, raising fears that the centre might take back powers given in 2010.

9. Evaluation

  • The 18th Amendment brought the biggest change, moving Pakistan from a largely administrative form of federalism to genuine provincial autonomy.
  • Weak provincial capacity and pressure on federal finances have since led to calls for revising it.

10. Conclusion

  • The history of these amendments shows the balance of power swinging back and forth. Pakistan's unity is best protected by federalism built on consensus, not by decisions taken at the centre alone.

Full 20-mark answer: CSS 2019 — Pakistan Affairs Paper (Solved)

4. CSS 2022 Q3 — Discuss the federal structure of the 1973 Constitution after the 18th Amendment. Why has criticism of the 18th Amendment started recently? (20)

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. The federal structure after the 18th Amendment
  3. Benefits of the new structure
  4. Why criticism of the amendment has grown
  5. Response to the criticism
  6. Way forward
  7. Conclusion

Answer

1. Introduction

  • The 18th Amendment, passed unanimously in April 2010, was the most important change to Pakistan's federal structure since 1973. In recent years, however, it has come under growing criticism.

2. The federal structure after the 18th Amendment

  • The Concurrent List was abolished, and all subjects not given to the federation now belong to the provinces.
  • Subjects in Part II of the Federal Legislative List are supervised by the Council of Common Interests.
  • Article 160(3A) protects the provinces' share in the NFC Award.
  • Article 172(3) gives provinces joint ownership of oil and gas, and Article 157 allows them to build their own power grids.
  • Article 140-A requires elected local governments, and Article 25-A makes education a fundamental right.
  • The Senate's role was strengthened, and Governor's rule now needs a resolution of the provincial assembly.

3. Benefits of the new structure

  • Provinces have greater autonomy and a stronger sense of ownership.
  • Long-standing grievances in Balochistan and Sindh have been partly addressed.
  • The amendment was a product of consensus among all parliamentary parties.
  • Provinces have experimented with new ideas, such as the Sehat Card and education reforms.

4. Why criticism of the amendment has grown

  • Finances. With 57.5 per cent of the divisible pool going to the provinces, the federal government has struggled to meet the cost of debt servicing and defence.
  • Capacity. Many provinces lacked the skills and systems to manage newly devolved subjects such as health and education.
  • National standards. Curriculum and drug regulation have become fragmented.
  • Coordination. The response to Covid-19 in 2020 exposed coordination problems.
  • Local government. Provinces have been reluctant to pass power and funds down to elected local bodies.
  • Politics. The PTI government pressed for revision, and the military establishment was reported to have reservations.

5. Response to the criticism

  • Supporters argue that the problem lies in poor implementation rather than in devolution itself.
  • They point out that provinces now carry most of the burden of service delivery and need the money to do so.
  • They also argue that the federal government's financial problems are better solved by collecting more tax than by cutting the provinces' share.

6. Way forward

  • Any review should be led by the Council of Common Interests.
  • A new NFC Award could link transfers to performance and to provincial tax effort.
  • National minimum standards should be agreed for key services.
  • Local governments should be properly empowered.
  • Any change should be made only by consensus.

7. Conclusion

  • The 18th Amendment has strengthened the federation by giving its units a real stake in it. It should be improved where it has fallen short, not rolled back.

Full 20-mark answer: CSS 2022 — Pakistan Affairs Paper (Solved)

5. CSS 2026 Q4 — To what extent does the 27th Constitutional Amendment strengthen or weaken constitutionalism and rule of law in Pakistan? Justify your stance with valid arguments. (20)

Outline

  1. Introduction and stance
  2. Meaning of constitutionalism and rule of law
  3. Background
  4. Key provisions of the 27th Amendment
  5. Arguments that it strengthens constitutionalism
  6. Arguments that it weakens constitutionalism
  7. Comparative perspective
  8. Way forward
  9. Conclusion

Answer

1. Introduction and stance

  • The 27th Amendment, signed into law on 13 November 2025, is the most far-reaching change to Pakistan's constitutional order since the 18th Amendment. This answer argues that a separate constitutional court is a sound idea in itself, but that the way the amendment has been designed weakens constitutionalism and the rule of law, at least in the short term.

2. Meaning of constitutionalism and rule of law

  • Constitutionalism means that government power is limited by a constitution, through the separation of powers and independent judicial review.
  • The rule of law, in A.V. Dicey's classic formulation, means the supremacy of law, equality before the law and courts that are independent of the government.

3. Background

  • The 18th Amendment of 2010 strengthened Parliament and created a Judicial Commission to appoint judges.
  • From 2007 to 2022 the Supreme Court was highly active, using suo motu powers and disqualifying two Prime Ministers.
  • The Practice and Procedure Act of 2023 limited the Chief Justice's powers.
  • The 26th Amendment of October 2024 added parliamentarians to the Judicial Commission, gave a parliamentary committee the power to choose the Chief Justice from the three most senior judges, and created constitutional benches.

4. Key provisions of the 27th Amendment

  • A Federal Constitutional Court now hears constitutional cases and disputes between the federation and the provinces.
  • Its first Chief Justice and judges were appointed by the President on the Prime Minister's advice.
  • The post of Chief of Defence Forces was created, the post of Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee was abolished and a lifetime rank was given to holders of the rank of Field Marshal.
  • Provisions touching provincial subjects and the NFC were also amended.
  • In protest, Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah of the Supreme Court and Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza of the Lahore High Court resigned.

5. Arguments that it strengthens constitutionalism

  • Separate constitutional courts work well in countries such as Germany, South Africa and Turkey.
  • Such a court was promised in the Charter of Democracy of 2006.
  • It frees the Supreme Court to clear its large backlog of ordinary cases.
  • It may restrain the judicial overreach of earlier years and restore Parliament's authority.
  • Equal provincial representation on the new court supports federalism.
  • The amendment was passed by the required two-thirds majority under Article 239.

6. Arguments that it weakens constitutionalism

  • The executive and the parliamentary majority now control appointments to the highest courts, which goes against the spirit of Article 175(3) and the Al-Jihad Trust judgment of 1996.
  • The power to enforce fundamental rights now rests with a court whose composition the government shapes.
  • The District Bar Association Rawalpindi case of 2015 recognised judicial independence as part of the Constitution's basic structure, yet the Supreme Court can no longer test the amendment against it.
  • Giving the military's leadership a constitutional position conflicts with the principle of civilian supremacy.
  • The amendment was passed in haste with little debate.
  • It has been criticised by bar councils, the International Commission of Jurists and other observers, and judges have resigned.
  • Changes to provincial matters have revived fears of recentralisation.

7. Comparative perspective

  • In Germany, constitutional judges are elected by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament, which forces cross-party agreement.
  • In South Africa, an independent Judicial Service Commission interviews candidates in public.
  • Pakistan's new system has neither safeguard. The weakness lies in the design of the court, not in the idea of having one.

8. Way forward

  • Clear and transparent criteria should govern judicial appointments.
  • Judges should form the majority in the Judicial Commission.
  • Nominees should face public hearings.
  • Judges' tenure should be secure, and they should not be transferred without consent.
  • All parties should review the amendment's working after an agreed period.
  • Parliament should oversee the new defence command.

9. Conclusion

  • The 27th Amendment tried to solve real problems of judicial overreach and delay with a tool that has worked elsewhere. But by concentrating the power of appointment in the executive and entrenching the military's role, it has weakened the checks on which constitutionalism depends. Unless it is reformed, its overall effect will be to weaken the rule of law.

Full 20-mark answer: CSS 2026 — Pakistan Affairs Paper (Solved)