Recent amendments to the Constitution, along with discussions about another proposed amendment, have renewed debate about how Pakistan’s Constitution can and should be amended. FAFEN has traced how this process has evolved since the Constitution came into force on August 14, 1973. Since then, the amendment procedure has been altered multiple times through martial law orders, Supreme Court judgments, and formal constitutional amendments.

Read FAFEN Story on Which Government has Led How Many Constitutional Amendments

What did the original 1973 Constitution say about amending the Constitution?

Article 238 of the original Constitution stated that the Constitution could be amended through an Act of Parliament. Article 239 outlined the following process for approval of amendments to the Constitution:

  • A constitutional amendment bill could only originate in the National Assembly.
  • Approval required a two-third majority of the total membership of the Assembly.
  • After Assembly approval, the bill went to the Senate, where only a simple majority of the total membership was needed. If not passed by the Senate within 90 days, the bill would deemed to have been rejected.
  • The President was required to give assent within seven days. If assent was not given within that time, it was deemed granted.
  • If an amendment altered the boundaries of a province, it also required approval by two-third of the total membership of the provincial assembly concerned before being sent to the President.

When did the first break from the original framework come?

The original Constitution was put in abeyance on July 5, 1977, through the Proclamation of Martial Law by General Zia-ul-Haq. Constitutional provisions were revived later in two phases, on March 10, 1985, and December 29, 1985. During the period of constitutional abeyance, the Chief Martial Law Administrator granted himself the authority to amend the Constitution through the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) 1981. The order authorized the President and the Chief Martial Law Administrator, both offices held by General Zia, to amend the Constitution unilaterally. This authority was made retrospective to validate amendments made before the order was issued.

How did the Revival of Constitution in 1985 reset the amendment process?

The Constitution was later restored with amendments through the Revival of the Constitution of 1973 Order, 1985. This order rewrote Article 239 and introduced the following changes:

  • A constitutional amendment bill could now originate in either House of Parliament.
  • Approval required a two-third majority in both the National Assembly and the Senate.
  • Every constitutional amendment also required approval by a simple majority of all provincial assemblies.
  • Amendments altering provincial boundaries continued to require a two-third majority in the concerned provincial assembly.
  • The revised Article 239 also stated that constitutional amendments could not be questioned in any court on any ground and declared Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution to be without any “limitation”.

When was the provincial-approval requirement lifted?

Later in 1985, the President withdrew the requirement of provincial assembly approval for every constitutional amendment through the Constitution (Second Amendment) Order, 1985. These orders were subsequently validated by the Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Act, 1985. As a result, the requirement for provincial approval was never practically applied.

How did the Musharraf era bring constitutional amendments under executive control?

On October 14, 1999, General Pervez Musharraf again placed the Constitution in abeyance through a Proclamation of Emergency and assumed the office of Chief Executive. Unlike in 1977, he did not immediately authorize himself to amend the Constitution. Instead, the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999 stated that the country would, as nearly as possible, continue to be governed under the Constitution.

However, while deciding the appeals challenging the Proclamation, the Supreme Court allowed the Chief Executive to amend the Constitution if it did not provide a solution for his declared objectives, on the condition that the salient features of the Constitution would not be altered.

Using this authority, the Chief Executive introduced amendments through the Legal Framework Order (LFO) 2002, which empowered him to amend the Constitution by issuing orders. These changes were later validated through the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 2002.

On November 3, 2007, General Musharraf once again proclaimed emergency, holding the Constitution in abeyance. This time, he authorized the President to amend the Constitution through the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 2007. The proclamation was withdrawn on December 15, 2007. These actions, however, were later invalidated by the Supreme Court.

What does the 27th amendment change about judicial review?

The Constitution (Twenty-seventh) Amendment Act, 2025 makes the latest change to the constitutional provisions on amendments. While it does not alter the amendment procedure, it revises the clauses relating to judicial review of constitutional amendments.

The earlier clause, inserted during General Zia’s tenure, already barred courts from questioning any constitutional amendment. The Twenty-seventh Amendment further strengthens this protection by preempting any exceptions in the Constitution or any court judgements. The reworded clause now reads as follows:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution and any judgment of any court, no court shall have jurisdiction to call in question any amendment to the Constitution on any ground whatsoever.”

This is how the process for amending the Constitution has changed over time.

Stay tuned to our website to read more about the history of constitutional amendments in Pakistan.