- Advertisement -
ISLAMABAD, Oct 20 (APP):The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on Monday adjourned the hearing of petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment till Tuesday.
An eight-member larger bench, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan heard the case. The bench included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan. The proceedings were also live-streamed.
At the outset, senior lawyer Akram Sheikh, appearing as the petitioner, argued that the current eight-member bench was not constitutionally competent to hear the matter since it was constituted under the very 26th Amendment being challenged.
He pleaded for the formation of a full court, comprising all 24 judges of the Supreme Court to hear the case, saying, “I want the entire Supreme Court to decide this constitutional issue. If case, a judge deems it inappropriate, he or she may recuse to sit.”
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned whether the participation of all 24 judges would not create a conflict of interest. Sheikh further submitted that a smaller bench could not overrule the decision of a larger bench.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked it was just ‘like an over-pampered child asking for the moon,’ and asked how such a full court could practically be constituted.
Later, lawyer Shabbir Raza Rizvi argued that the matter should be placed before the Supreme Court as a whole, rather than a specific constitutional bench. He contended that when Articles 176 and 191-A are read together, it becomes clear that constitutional issues fall within the jurisdiction of the entire Supreme Court.
Justice Mandokhail asked what would happen to the requirements of Article 191-A(3) if the Practice and Procedure Committee decided to form a full court. Rizvi replied that the issue involved the independence of the judiciary, and “this bench must take a principled stand.”
After hearing arguments from the counsel, the court adjourned further proceedings till Tuesday at 11am.