Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar on Wednesday observed that all judges of the Supreme Court’s (SC) Constitutional Bench (CB) could be included to hear the set of petitions against the 26th Amendment.
The 26th Amendment was passed by Parliament during an overnight session in October last year, with the PTI claiming seven of its lawmakers were abducted to gain their favour as the party opposed the legislation. The Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M) also alleged its two senators were being, with both later defying party line to vote in the tweaks’ favour.
The legislation, which altered judicial authority and tenure, has been a lightning rod for debate, with both opposition parties and legal experts questioning its impact on the judiciary’s independence.
The tweaks took away the SC’s suo motu powers, set the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) term at three years and empowered a Special Parliamentary Committee for the appointment of the CJP from among the three most senior SC judges. It also paved the way for the formation of the CB, which is now hearing petitions against the very legislation that enabled its establishment.
The bench hearing the pleas is headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and also includes Justices Mazhar, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Ayesha Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan.
Thus far, senior lawyer Abid Shahid Zuberi, Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) lawyer Hamid Khan, Balochistan High Court Bar Association (BHCBA)’s counsel Munir A. Malik, and petitioner Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed have presented their arguments.
They have sought the formation of a 16-member full court as per the number of judges present in the SC in Oct 2024, when the Amendment was passed. Judges have questioned whether the CB has the power to issue orders for the constitution of a full court, as requested by petitioners.
Today’s hearing
Zuberi, also a former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president, continued his arguments for the fourth consecutive hearing today.
At one point during the hearing, Justice Mazhar observed, “The Constitutional Bench can hear the case of the 26th Amendment. If needed, all judges of the Constitutional Bench can be included.
“But you are saying that so and so judges should be part of it, and not the others, so this is strange,” he added.
At the outset of the hearing, petitioner Advocate Akram Sheikh brought up the matter of a “good judicial environment”.
At this, Justice Mandokhail, referring to his exchange with Justice Ayesha yesterday, said: “What happened yesterday should not have happened.”
Sheikh also urged the bench to fix a duration for lawyers to present their arguments, at which Justice Aminuddin noted that time restrictions applied to everyone.
Assuring the bench that he would conclude his arguments today, Zuberi said he would cite past court orders that define the difference between a bench and a full court.
Justice Hilali then asked whether judges will have to stop calling a full court a bench, to which Zuberi replied in the affirmative. Citing several rulings, the lawyer said constituting benches was the Practice and Procedure Committee’s power.
Zuberi reiterated that he was requesting a full court, adding, “You can [only] form a bench.”
Justice Mazhar noted that the verdicts cited by Zuberi were from before the 26th Amendment was passed, when Article 191, under which the CB was formed, was not present.
More to follow
