- Advertisement -
ISLAMABAD, Oct 14 (APP): The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing of petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment until Wednesday, October 15.
An eight-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the case.
The bench also comprised Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal.
At the outset of the proceedings, live streaming of the hearing was interrupted due to internet connectivity issues. Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked, “There is a problem with the internet today; the hearing cannot be live-streamed.” Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar added that the live streaming link was down and would be checked for restoration.
During the hearing, Advocate Abid Zuberi, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association and counsel for the petitioners, presented his arguments. He contended that a full court comprising judges who were part of the Supreme Court prior to the constitutional amendment should be constituted so that the judgment reflects collective wisdom.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked, “On one hand, you are asking for a 16-member bench, and on the other, you are talking about collective wisdom. Please first clarify your request.” He further observed, “We have Article 191-A before us, which is part of the Constitution. Some argue that it should be set aside, but how can any constitutional article be sidelined?”
Justice Ayesha Malik observed that the matter directly concerns the independence of the judiciary, noting, “The authority to grant or withhold the right of appeal now rests with the Judicial Commission. If the Commission wishes, it may nominate additional judges to allow the right of appeal.”
The bench also discussed various aspects of the Supreme Court Rules 2025. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated that the rules were framed in the presence of 24 judges and called for the meeting minutes to be produced to clarify which clauses were referred to the committee. Justice Ayesha Malik, however, said, “The rules were not finalized in the presence of all judges; my note on record clarifies that.”
Attorney General for Pakistan intervened, describing the matter as an internal administrative issue of the Court and suggested that it should not be discussed in this forum.
Justice Ayesha Malik remarked that the Committee has the authority to constitute benches but not a full court, adding that its powers cannot be equated with those of the Chief Justice. “We are discussing the formation of a full court, not regular benches,” she emphasized.
Advocate Abid Zuberi also presented constitutional arguments distinguishing between a full court and a regular bench, stating that a full court is not itself a constitutional bench. He referred to precedents related to reserved seat cases and argued that the Chief Justice still retains the authority to constitute a full court and that the Court may issue directions in this regard.
The Supreme Court adjourned further hearing of the case until 11:30am on Wednesday, October 15.