Efforts were made to render the 26th Constitutional Amendment controversial, with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leading the charge in creating a national narrative of rejection. Similarly, a faction of lawyers also opposed the amendment, suggesting a significant lawyers’ movement would erupt if it were passed. It was predicted that if the amendment ignored seniority in appointing the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court justices would not accept it, potentially causing a crisis within the court. Additionally, there were rumors of a strong public opposition, with expectations of a resistance movement from the general populace. Thus, a tense atmosphere surrounded the amendment’s passage.
However, the 26th Constitutional Amendment has now been broadly accepted. PTI, which initially hinted at extensive protests and nationwide shutdowns, including plans by KP Chief Minister Gandapur to mobilize an “Islamabad march,” has shown no signs of action. Instead, Gandapur was among the first to attend the swearing-in ceremony of the Chief Justice appointed under the new amendment, arriving even an hour early, showing a stark contrast to his previous stance. This shift suggests PTI has accepted the 26th Amendment, deciding not to challenge it in court and refraining from staging protests in Islamabad.
Certain lawyers’ leaders also implied that a massive lawyers’ movement would ensue if the amendment bypassed seniority in appointing the Chief Justice, resulting in protests both in and outside the courts. Historically, they argued, lawyers’ movements could even topple governments, suggesting no regime, including dictatorships, could withstand it. Despite such rhetoric, Pakistan’s legal community has largely accepted the amendment and the newly appointed Chief Justice. Celebrations and acceptance are apparent across various bar councils and lawyer organizations, with no significant strikes or protests. The anticipated lawyers’ movement has thus dissolved, with those once vocal about protesting now silent.
Within the Supreme Court, predictions of severe backlash were made if seniority was ignored. There were even rumors that Justice Yahya Afridi would refuse to take the oath if appointed Chief Justice under the new amendment. But these speculations proved unfounded, as Afridi not only accepted the position but also began his duties without issue, affirming the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the amendment.
At Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s farewell reference, though six Supreme Court judges abstained, the majority of judges attended, signaling Isa’s broad support within the court. One judge wrote a letter against him, which was perceived as part of an internal political struggle among judges for the Chief Justice position, as well as resistance to constitutional amendments through judicial activism.
Attempts to prevent the amendment, including blocking appeals for reconsideration, ultimately failed. Speculations of mass resignations from judges, especially those bypassed in the appointment process, also did not materialize. For instance, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, despite abstaining from attending Afridi’s swearing-in and Isa’s farewell, did not resign, nor did any other judges.
In conclusion, the 26th Constitutional Amendment and the Chief Justice appointed under it have been accepted by PTI, the legal community, and the judiciary. The anticipated crisis and protests never came to fruition, and acceptance of the amendment appears widespread.