Judge Aminuddin Khan Named First FCC Chief Judge

Justice Aminuddin Khan was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court on Friday, before a packed room of judges, lawyers and dignitaries in Islamabad.

Justice Aminuddin’s appointment follows the adoption of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, which became part of the Constitution after the signing of President Asif Ali Zardari. The amendment reshapes the judicial structure: the incumbent Chief Justice, Yahya Afridi, retains the title of “Chief Justice of Pakistan” until the end of his term, while the more senior between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court will be recognized as the Chief Justice of Pakistan later, after the retirement of Justice Yahya Afridi. It further authorizes the president to appoint FCC judges on the advice of the prime minister – a move that has sparked intense debate in legal circles.

Read: President signs 27th Amendment bill

The Federal Constitutional Court represents a long-standing democratic commitment, first envisioned in the 2006 Charter of Democracy, signed by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). The appointment of Justice Aminuddin Khan aligns perfectly with the original intention of the CoD. This involves creating a specialized constitutional body to strengthen judicial independence and allow the Supreme Court to focus on appellate work.

As chief justice of the FCC, Justice Aminuddin will oversee a tribunal of seven judges – four from the Supreme Court and two from the high courts – with a retirement age set at 68, three years higher than that of the Supreme Court. The court has exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation, intergovernmental disputes and presidential or parliamentary references, marking a structural transformation in Pakistan’s judicial landscape, one that Justice Aminuddin is uniquely positioned to lead.

However, his appointment caused unease in legal circles. Critics note that Justice Aminuddin authored the “reserved seats decision” that allowed the government to secure a two-thirds majority, approved the “trial of civilians in military courts,” and consistently sided with the executive on judicial appointments at JCP meetings. For them, appointing the same judge to head the country’s new supreme constitutional court means a consolidation of power at a time when judicial independence is already under strain.

The elevation of Justice Aminuddin Khan follows a long judicial career spanning four decades. Born in Multan in 1960 into a family of lawyers, he began practicing law in 1984 under his father, Khan Sadiq Muhammad Ahsan. He was enrolled as an advocate of the Lahore High Court in 1987 and became an advocate of the Supreme Court in 2001. He was appointed to the Lahore High Court in 2011 and elevated to the Supreme Court in 2019, where he currently heads the constitutional judiciary.

Along with Chief Justice and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, he joined a three-judge committee under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, tasked with deciding which constitutional cases would be referred to the new bench. His inclusion underscored his growing institutional authority and trust among his fellow judges.

In November 2024, following the passage of the 26th constitutional amendment, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) voted to appoint him as the head of the new seven-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court. The ruling, passed by a narrow majority of seven to five, placed Justice Aminuddin at the head of a court with exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation, marking a major shift in the dynamics of Pakistan’s judiciary.

Among his notable contributions is his dissenting opinion in the July 12 reserved seats affair. He was also a member of the nine-judge bench that considered the presidential reference regarding the hanging of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

Throughout his career, Justice Aminuddin is the author of several decisions in civil and constitutional law. As head of the Constitutional Chamber, he oversaw matters relating to constitutional interpretation and judicial review, contributing to the legal framework that underpins the FCC. The FCC, created under the 27th Constitutional Amendment, has exclusive authority over interpretation of the Constitution, federal-provincial disputes, and matters referred by the President or Parliament. Justice Aminuddin was appointed as the first Chief Justice shortly before his retirement from the Supreme Court, leading the court since its inception.

Reserved places

The reserved seats case concerned the allocation of parliamentary seats to women and minorities following the February 2024 general elections. The main issue was whether the PTI candidates, who were running as independents after losing their party symbol and aligning with the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), were eligible. The affair had significant political implications, potentially affecting the majority of the ruling coalition in the National Assembly.

Learn more: “PTI was not a party in reserved seats case”: SC judges issue dissenting opinion

The original 13-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by then CJP Qazi Faez Isa, found the PTI eligible for the reserved seats, overturning earlier decisions of the Election Commission and the Peshawar High Court. Justice Aminuddin and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan dissented, emphasizing that the PTI was not a party to the case and granting relief would exceed the constitutional jurisdiction of the court. He argued that the PTI was not a party before the ECP or the High Court, emphasizing that unconstitutional decisions cannot bind constitutional institutions and that the PTI’s claim through the SIC was procedurally invalid.

In June 2025, the Constitutional Court headed by Justice Aminuddin considered the case. On June 29, 2025, it reversed the decision of July 12, 2024, declaring the PTI ineligible for the reserved seats and reinstating the original decision of the Peshawar High Court, which had rejected the PTI’s application because the SIC had not participated in the elections. Seven judges fully supported the review petitions filed by the Election Commission, the PML-N and others, while three partially allowed them. The dissenting opinions of Justices Ayesha Malik and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi were taken into account. The judgment clarified that PTI candidates who had joined the SIC could be disqualified under section 63A if they joined the PTI. The seats reserved under Articles 51 and 106, as well as the electoral law, were confirmed and allocated to the coalition parties.

The verdict was a major setback for the PTI, confirming its ineligibility for reserved seats in the national and provincial assemblies. It strengthened the role of the Electoral Commission and respect for constitutional procedure. Justice Aminuddin’s dissent in the original decision highlighted the importance he places on constitutional compliance and procedural correctness.

Military courts

The case examined the constitutionality of trying civilians in military courts, including the May 9, 2023 unrest and the 2009 GHQ attack. The petitioners argued that such trials violated constitutional guarantees, including Article 10A on fair trial, and challenged previous Supreme Court decisions.

On September 23, 2025, a constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin ruled, by a majority of 5-2, that civil trials under the Army Act were “constitutional” if conducted within statutory limits and procedural safeguards. Justice Aminuddin wrote that military courts grant the right to counsel, cross-examination and appellate review under Article 133-B, emphasizing that fairness does not require military courts to mirror civilian courts.

The ruling clarified that military trials meet minimum standards of fairness and due process when legal procedures are followed. Military courts do not replace civilian courts but operate within a defined legal space linked to national defense and operational needs. The judiciary noted the lack of independent appellate review in the civil courts as a procedural shortcoming, urging Parliament to legislate for appeals to the High Court. Previous rulings tossing out such trials have been rejected, with the court emphasizing constitutional restraint.

Read also: Army says ‘no compromise’ with May 9 planners and executors

Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan disagreed, arguing that civilian trials in military courts violated fair trial standards and the principle of separation of powers.

During the proceedings, the bench considered historical cases, including the 2009 GHQ attack, and noted that military courts are specialized statutory forums that are not part of the ordinary judiciary. The judgment also addressed concerns about the impartiality and scope of military jurisdiction, clarifying that military courts operate under the authority of law within operational requirements.

The verdict affirmed the legality of civil trials under the Army Act while recommending legislative reforms to ensure independent appeal rights to the high courts. Justice Aminuddin’s judgment defined the scope of military jurisdiction over civilians and established procedural safeguards, balancing operational requirements and constitutional principles.