THE SUO-MOTU JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN, A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BEFORE AND AFTER THE 26TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Abstract

This study critically examines the evolution of Suo-Motu jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, with a particular focus on the reforms introduced through the 26^th Constitutional Amendment of October 2024. Historically, Suo-Motu powers allowed the Supreme Court to act “on its own motion” in matters of public importance involving fundamental rights, often expanding access to justice for marginalized groups and filling governance vacuums. However, this broad discretion also raised concerns of judicial overreach, unpredictability, and imbalance in the separation of powers. The 26^th Amendment recalibrated this jurisdiction by prohibiting unilateral action, requiring petitions from aggrieved parties, mandating collective decision-making through benches, and introducing appellate remedies. Employing a qualitative doctrinal analysis supported by a comparative framework, the research traces the trajectory of Suo-Motu powers before and after the amendment and evaluates their implications for judicial independence, institutional balance, and access to justice. Findings reveal a dual outcome: while the amendment curtails judicial populism and strengthens procedural transparency, it also narrows the Court’s capacity to act as an immediate guardian of rights, particularly for diffuse or unrepresented grievances. The study concludes that the reform represents neither a complete curtailment nor an unequivocal strengthening of judicial powers but rather a constitutional recalibration that prioritizes institutional balance over judicial activism. This research contributes to scholarly and policy debates on constitutionalism and judicial reform in Pakistan and recommends further empirical and comparative studies to assess the long-term effects of these reforms on governance, public trust, and the protection of fundamental rights