He leads the court created under the 27th Amendment; he oversaw reserved seating and military court verdicts.
Justice Aminuddin Khan was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court on Friday before a packed courtroom of judges, lawyers and dignitaries in Islamabad.
Justice Aminuddin’s appointment comes after the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, which is now part of the Constitution following the signature of President Asif Ali Zardari. The amendment reforms the judicial structure: the acting Chief Justice Yahya Afridi retains the title of “Chief Justice of Pakistan” until the completion of his term, while the most senior president between the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court will be recognized as Chief Justice of Pakistan later, after Justice Yahya Afridi retires. Additionally, it authorizes the president to appoint FCC judges on the advice of the prime minister, a move that has sparked intense debate within legal circles.
Read: President signs 27th amendment bill into law
The Federal Constitutional Court represents a long-standing democratic commitment, first provided for in the 2006 Democracy Charter, signed by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). The nomination of Justice Aminuddin Khan aligns perfectly with the original intention of the CoD. It is about creating a specialized constitutional body to strengthen judicial independence and allow the Supreme Court to focus on appellate work.
As chairman of the FCC, Justice Aminuddin will oversee a bench of seven judges (four from the Supreme Court and two from the high courts) with a retirement age of 68, three years older 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, a transformation that Justice Aminuddin is uniquely positioned to lead.
However, his nomination has caused unrest in legal circles. Critics point out that Justice Aminuddin authored the ‘reserved seats ruling’ that enabled the government’s two-thirds majority, supported the ‘trial of civilians in military courts’ and consistently sided with the executive in judicial appointments at JCP meetings. For them, appointing the same judge to preside over the country’s new supreme constitutional court signals a consolidation of power at a time when judicial independence is already under pressure.
The judge whose decision in the reserved seats case helped the government win a 2/3 majority in the National Assembly, allowed civilians to be tried in military courts and supported almost all executive decisions related to the appointment of judges during JCP meetings, is being nominated as Chief Justice of…
-Hasnaat Malik (@HasnaatMalik) November 13, 2025
Justice Aminuddin Khan’s elevation comes after a long judicial career spanning four decades. Born in Multan in 1960 into a family of lawyers, he began practicing law in 1984 with his father, Khan Sadiq Muhammad Ahsan. He enrolled as a lawyer of the Lahore High Court in 1987 and became a lawyer 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 Bench.
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 court. 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 head of the newly constituted seven-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. The decision, 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 change in the dynamics of Pakistan’s judiciary.
Among his notable contributions was his dissenting opinion in the July 12 reserved seats case. He was also a member of the nine-judge bench that examined the presidential reference regarding the hanging of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Throughout his career, Justice Aminuddin has authored several judgments in civil and constitutional law. As head of the Constitutional Chamber, he has overseen cases related 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 constitutional interpretation, federal-provincial disputes, and matters referred by the President or Parliament. Justice Aminuddin has been appointed as the first Chief Justice shortly before his retirement from the Supreme Court, and has led the court since its inception.
Reserved seats
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 contesting as independents after losing their party symbol and aligning with the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), were eligible. The case had important political implications, which could affect the majority of the ruling coalition in the National Assembly.
Read more: ‘PTI was not a party in the reserved seats case’: SC judges issue dissenting opinion
The initial 13-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by then CJP Qazi Faez Isa, ruled that the PTI was eligible for the reserved seats, overturning earlier decisions of the Election Commission and the Peshawar High Court. Justice Aminuddin, along with Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, dissented, pointing out that the PTI was not a party to the case and that granting relief would exceed the court’s constitutional jurisdiction. He argued that the PTI was not a party before the ECP or the High Court, and emphasized that decisions not aligned with the Constitution cannot bind constitutional institutions, and that the PTI’s claim through the SIC was procedurally invalid.
In June 2025, the Constitutional Court led by Justice Aminuddin reviewed the case. On 29 June 2025, it overturned the decision of 12 July 2024, declaring the PTI ineligible for reserved seats and reinstating the original ruling of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the PTI’s claim because SIC had not participated in the elections. Seven judges fully supported the review petitions filed by the Election Commission, PML-N and others, while three partially allowed them. The dissenting opinions of Justices Ayesha Malik and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi were considered. The judgment clarified that PTI candidates who had joined the SIC could face disqualification under Article 63A if they rejoined the PTI. It was confirmed that the seats reserved under Articles 51 and 106 and the Electoral Law would go to the coalition parties.
The verdict was a major setback for the PTI as it confirmed its ineligibility for reserved seats in the national and provincial assemblies. It reinforced the role of the Electoral Commission and compliance with the constitutional procedure. Judge Aminuddin’s dissent in the initial ruling highlighted his focus on constitutional compliance and procedural correctness.
military courts
The case examined the constitutionality of trying civilians before military courts, including the May 9, 2023 riots and the 2009 headquarters attack. The petitioners argued that such trials violated constitutional guarantees, including Article 10A on fair trials, and challenged previous Supreme Court rulings.
A Constitutional Bench led by Justice Aminuddin, with a majority of 5 to 2 on September 23, 2025, held civil trials under the Army Act as “constitutional” if conducted within legal limits and procedural safeguards. Justice Aminuddin wrote that military courts provide rights to counsel, cross-examination, and appellate review under Article 133-B, and emphasized that fairness does not require that military courts 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 rather operate in a defined legal space related to national defense and operational needs. The court pointed to the absence of independent appellate review in the civil courts as a procedural lacuna, and urged Parliament to legislate for appeals to the High Court. Previous rulings overturning such trials were rejected, and the court emphasized constitutional restraint.
Also read: Army says there will be “no compromise” with May 9 planners and executors
Judges Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan dissented, arguing that civilian trials in military courts violate fair trial standards and the principle of separation of powers.
During the proceedings, the court reviewed historical cases, including the 2009 headquarters attack, and noted that military courts are specialized statutory forums, not part of the regular judiciary. The ruling also addressed concerns about the impartiality and scope of military jurisdiction, clarifying that military courts operate under legal authority within operational demands.
The verdict affirmed the legality of civil trials under the Army Act and recommended legislative reforms to provide independent appeal rights in the High Courts. Judge Aminuddin’s ruling defined the scope of military jurisdiction over civilians and established procedural safeguards, balancing operational requirements with constitutional principles.
