The proposed establishment of a Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) in Pakistan is more than just a structural adjustment to the judiciary; it is a crucial step toward bolstering democratic governance and addressing long-standing disparities between the provinces. While some critics argue that such a court would undermine the judiciary’s current framework, the opposite is true—it would bring much-needed balance and efficiency, especially in matters of constitutional interpretation and inter-provincial disputes.
Constitutional courts around the world, including Germany and several European nations, have long served as the cornerstone of judicial stability and the rule of law. They are designed to interpret constitutions impartially, keeping checks on the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that no authority oversteps its bounds. Pakistan’s current judicial system, burdened by an enormous backlog of cases and inconsistent decisions from various provincial courts, would benefit immensely from a dedicated body whose sole focus is constitutional matters.
The historical context of Pakistan’s judiciary offers clear insight into why such a court is necessary. Since the 1980s, martial law regimes and hybrid political systems under General Zia and General Musharraf manipulated the judiciary to secure their control over the political landscape. Compliant Supreme Court judges were used to dismiss elected governments and impose policies that served authoritarian interests. The Supreme Court, intended to act as a neutral forum for resolving disputes between Islamabad and the provinces, has often failed to exercise this vital function under Article 184 of the Constitution.
Even today, the Supreme Court remains overburdened with an excessive caseload, including cases of constitutional importance that overshadow civil and criminal matters affecting ordinary citizens. With over 60,000 cases pending, it is clear that a separate Constitutional Court is required to alleviate this load and focus solely on constitutional issues. This division of labour would allow the Supreme Court to dedicate more time to cases that directly affect the everyday lives of Pakistan’s people, while the FCC would handle matters that require specialised knowledge of constitutional law.
The 18th Amendment, which was passed with consensus in 2010, marked a critical step towards decentralisation and provincial autonomy. However, without a Federal Constitutional Court to adjudicate disputes between the provinces and the federal government, the amendment’s full potential has not been realised. Smaller provinces like Balochistan, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have long voiced concerns about the Supreme Court’s tendency to favour Punjab in its decisions, exacerbating feelings of marginalisation. The establishment of an FCC, with equal representation from all provinces, would ensure a more balanced and fair judicial system.
Critics who argue that the FCC would dilute the powers of the Supreme Court overlook the fact that constitutional courts do not operate outside the judicial framework but within it. In jurisdictions where such courts exist, they have only strengthened the judiciary’s role as an independent and impartial pillar of the state. The FCC would, in fact, help streamline constitutional adjudication, ensuring uniformity in decisions across the provinces and reducing the likelihood of conflicting judgments from different high courts.
In Pakistan, political polarisation often clouds discussions about judicial reforms. However, the creation of the FCC is not a partisan issue. It has been a part of the national discourse since 2006, when the Charter of Democracy (CoD) was signed, and has the support of all major bar councils and legal associations. The judiciary’s current structure—where one court is responsible for both civil, criminal, and constitutional cases—has led to inefficiencies that frustrate litigants and delay justice. By establishing an FCC, the government would be taking a long-overdue step towards ensuring faster adjudication of cases, improving judicial accountability, and enhancing investor confidence in a fair legal system.
The benefits of this proposed amendment are clear: it would create a neutral and equitable forum for resolving inter-governmental disputes, reduce the untenable backlog of cases, and restore faith in the judiciary among Pakistan’s provinces. As the country grapples with economic instability and political turbulence, strengthening the judiciary is not just a legal imperative—it is a national necessity. For Pakistan to thrive as a federation, it must ensure that all its provinces feel represented in the judicial system. An FCC, with its commitment to constitutional interpretation and provincial equality, offers the best path forward.
The judiciary, like all other pillars of the state, must evolve to meet the demands of a changing political and social landscape. The creation of the Senate in 1973 ensured equal representation for all provinces in legislative matters, providing a check against the overrepresentation of Punjab. Today, Pakistan faces a similar crossroads. The establishment of the Federal Constitutional Court would signal the country’s commitment to fairness, equality, and the rule of law—values enshrined in the Constitution, which is, after all, the people’s social contract with the state.
The time for judicial reform is now. The establishment of a Constitutional Court would not undermine the Supreme Court, but rather empower it by allowing it to focus on civil and criminal matters while ensuring that constitutional issues are addressed with the care and expertise they require. Pakistan’s provinces deserve a judicial system that represents them equally. A Federal Constitutional Court is the key to making this vision a reality.
