Judicial Observations over the Doctrine of Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment in Pakistan: A Critical Appraisal

In: Global social sciences review: an open access, triple-blind peer review, multidisciplinary journal, Band VI, Heft II, S. 278-285

Abstract

The legal fraternity and some political parties around the country challenged the twenty-first constitutional amendment, enacted by the Parliament of Pakistan. The petitioners contended that the Legislature amended the basic features of the Pakistan Constitution beyond its scope of amending power and liable to be declared unconstitutional. However, some of the judges of the apex Court of Pakistan adopted the former judicial approach. They ruled that the apex court had no authority to annul any amendment when it became a formal part of 1973'sConstitution. The apex court further stated that the impugned amendment might be taken under consideration if it was found that the required constitutional procedure for amendment did not comply with it. This research aims to critically analyze observations of the apex court about examining the constitutional amendment on the yardstick of repugnancy with the basic features of the Constitution of Pakistan. For achieving the proposed objective, this study adopts a doctrinal research method. It carries out an in-depth analysis from the perspective of modern Constitutionalism, juristic literature, and judgments of the superior courts of various States to support the study.