Judges resign; principles do not

Barrister Syed Hamid Jamal ON 10 February 2025, lawyers in black coats marched on Islamabad believing the constitutional order was being fundamentally reshaped and that the judiciary could no longer resist it from within. They arrived from across the country to protest the 26th Constitutional Amendment and the convening of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan for Supreme Court appointments. Barricades rose around the Red Zone. Police lined the approaches to the Supreme Court. Protesters invoked constitutional supremacy and judicial independence. For a brief moment, it looked like 2007 again. It was not. The movement of 2007 possessed something rare: moral simplicity. The confrontation was instantly understood. The symbolism was direct. The legal fraternity responded with unity and persistence that eventually forced a reversal. The protests of February 2025 offered no such clarity. The dispute concerned judicial appointments, constitutional procedure and institutional seniority, serious but legally dense questions. To a public burdened by inflation and instability, the crisis appeared distant from everyday survival. The black coat no longer carried the uncontested moral authority it once did. The legal community itself was divided. Some viewed the amendments as a direct assault on judicial independence. Others considered them controversial but constitutionally permissible. Some joined the protests openly; others questioned whether the movement had become entangled in opposition politics and establishment rivalries. Without unanimity, momentum never crystallized. The state responded not with panic but with procedural continuity. The Judicial Commission meeting proceeded despite the demonstrations. By ensuring appointments continued uninterrupted, the government deprived the movement of its immediate leverage. What the movement needed was not louder voices on the street but quieter resolve on the bench, judges willing to remain, resist and force the state to confront pr