- Advertisement -
ISLAMABAD, Oct 13 (APP):The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the hearing of petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment till Tuesday. An eight-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, took up the case.
During the proceedings, an extensive legal discussion took place between the bench and Advocate Abid Zuberi regarding the composition of constitutional benches, the formation of a full court, and the powers of the Chief Justice.
At the outset, Justice Ayesha Malik asked Abid Zuberi about the essence of his petition. The counsel contended that the case should be heard by a full court consisting of judges appointed prior to the 26th Amendment. He argued that since the amendment itself had been challenged, the bench formed under its provisions did not have the authority to hear the case.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned whether any party had the right to demand the constitution of a specific bench or inclusion of particular judges. He remarked, “We are not bound to alter the bench; every judge of this court deserves equal respect.”
Advocate Zuberi clarified that he did not doubt the integrity of any judge but insisted that such a sensitive constitutional matter should be decided collectively by a full court. Justice Mandokhail then asked whether, in his view, a full court should comprise 16 judges or all 24 judges of the Supreme Court.
Justice Ayesha Malik observed that Article 191 of the Constitution mentions benches but not a full court, while Justice Mandokhail noted that “a full court is also, in essence, a bench.”
Justice Musarrat Hilali raised a question as to whether judges appointed under the 26th Amendment could issue judicial orders on the matter. In response, Zuberi maintained that the constitutional bench had the authority to issue a judicial order for the formation of a full court, as the Chief Justice was no longer the “master of the roster.”
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that under Article 191, constitutional matters were to be heard by a constitutional bench, and that the term “full court” did not appear in the Constitution. He added, “You are seeking the inclusion of pre-amendment judges in the full court, yet constitutionally, those very judges cannot be members of the constitutional bench.”
Advocate Zuberi also cited several judicial precedents to support his stance, arguing that a full court would allow the judiciary’s collective wisdom to guide the decision.
Subsequently, the constitutional bench adjourned further proceedings in the case till Tuesday.