THE passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment has raised a vital question: does it reinforce parliamentary sovereignty, or doesitrepresent a calculated shiftin power aimed at curbing the judiciary`s independence? At first glance, this may seem like a victory for the democratic process, but a closer look reveals a more complex reality.

One of the most significant changes is the new process for appointing the ChiefJustice of Pakistan (CJP). The shift away from the established principle of judicial seniority raises concerns about the future independence of the judiciary. Further, the amendment has also introduced other parameters, which, on the surface, could be seen as a move towards greater accountability, but may well be used to undermine the ability of the judiciary to act independently of the executive.

One of the few positive developments within the amendment is the establishment of a constitutional bench within the Supreme Court. However, even this development cannot escape the broader concerns about the amendment`s impact on judicialindependence.

As such, the judiciary`s role in a functioning democracy is not simply to act as a passive bystander to political decisions, but to serve as a vital check on government overreach. By shifting control over judicial appointments and introducing measures that could compromise judicial independence, the 26th Amendment risks undermining the critical balance of power.

As we watch these changes unfold, it is clearthatthe stakes are highforthe country`s future as a functional democracy.

Asad Ullah Lahore