LAHORE: The Lahore High Court bar has demanded the resignation of three judges recently transferred by the Islamabad High Court, calling the moves a breach of constitutional safeguards and urging earlier resignees to join the bar’s protest.
The transfers, it may be recalled here, were approved at a Judicial Commission meeting yesterday under the contested 27th Constitutional Amendment, which was passed in November 2025. The Lahore Bar Association said the three judges should follow the example of those who stepped down earlier and resign to “uphold the supremacy of the Constitution.”
“The transfers sanctioned under the 27th Amendment undermine judicial independence,” Lahore Bar President Irfan Hayat Bajwa said, adding: “I tell those judges who resigned earlier to stand with the bar and the public.” Bajwa urged the transferred judges to refuse to be normalised into a system the bar regards as constitutionally compromised.
Lawyers and many within the judiciary have mounted sustained opposition to key provisions of the 27th Amendment.
Among the most contentious changes is a revision to Article 200 that allows the Judicial Commission to recommend transfers of High Court judges without their consent; under the amendment, a judge who refuses transfer can be treated as retired or face other punitive consequences, critics say. The amendment also establishes a new Federal Constitutional Court, reshapes the Supreme Court’s role in constitutional adjudication, and alters appointment and transfer processes—moves that opponents argue expand executive and parliamentary influence over the bench.
The amendment triggered immediate and high-profile resignations from the judiciary, followed by Supreme Court justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah resigned in protest, denouncing the amendment as a “grave assault” on the Constitution that effectively “dismantles” the Supreme Court. Lahore High Court Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza also stepped down.
Leaders of lawyers’ bodies are of the opinion that the Lahore Bar framed its demand as principled resistance rather than personal attack. By calling on the transferred judges to resign, the bar said it aims to create moral pressure and public resistance, refuse to normalise what it regards as unconstitutional executive overreach, and defend the principle that judges should not compromise their oath by serving under a diluted constitutional framework.
“The bar believes these transfers—enabled by the 27th Amendment—represent a serious erosion of judicial independence,” the association said in a statement. “We call on the affected judges to join those who have already resigned and resist being complicit in the dismantling of constitutional safeguards.”
The demand continues an escalating confrontation between the legal fraternity and the government-coalition that enacted the amendments. Legal bodies, senior lawyers and sections of the bench have mounted protests and filed challenges, arguing the changes jeopardise judicial autonomy and the separation of powers.
Government supporters maintain the amendments were enacted to address systemic issues and to streamline constitutional adjudication, but opponents say the reforms leave too much discretion in hands susceptible to political influence.
