{"id":22489,"date":"2025-10-08T09:04:05","date_gmt":"2025-10-08T09:04:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipp-news.com\/?p=22489"},"modified":"2025-10-08T09:04:05","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T09:04:05","slug":"sc-goes-live-with-petitions-challenging-26th-constitutional-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipp-news.com\/?p=22489","title":{"rendered":"SC goes live with petitions challenging 26th Constitutional Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"
As the Supreme Court began live-streaming proceedings on petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the Constitutional Bench (CB) heard arguments on a plea seeking the formation of a \u201cfull court\u201d \u2014 a move seen as crucial for collective judicial deliberation on a case concerning the court\u2019s own structure.<\/p>\n

The petitioners\u2019 counsel argued that Article 191A places the appointment of judges and the formation of benches within the Supreme Court\u2019s internal domain. However, for the first time in Pakistan\u2019s history, the amendment \u2014 passed in October 2024 \u2014 introduced a mechanism that transfers this authority away from the judiciary.<\/p>\n

The counsel further contended that the petitions should be heard by the \u201csame 16-member bench\u201d that was in place when the amendment was passed, saying this would ensure continuity and constitutional legitimacy.<\/p>\n

Hamid Khan, counsel for the Lahore High Court Bar Association, recalled that 17 judges were serving in the Supreme Court at the time the legislation was passed, including then\u2013CJP Qazi Faez Isa, who has since retired.<\/p>\n

He argued that the present petitions should therefore be heard by a “16-judge full court”, comprising those who were part of the apex court in October last year. Khan added that all eight judges currently serving on the Constitutional Bench were among those judges.<\/p>\n

The bench, however, pressed the counsel to cite the specific law mandating the reconstitution of the earlier bench. \u201cPoint us to the provision that allows us to constitute a full court bench,\u201d one judge remarked, as the court sought clarity on the statutory basis for the request.<\/p>\n

During the exchange, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked, \u201cTell us from the text of the Constitution, how can we order a full court? Can we issue this order using Article 187?\u201d To this, Hamid Khan responded, \u201cYes, absolutely, the court can exercise its powers under Article 187.\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail then remarked, \u201cSuppose we accept your point and consider all Supreme Court judges as a constitutional bench \u2014 would you be satisfied?\u201d Khan replied, \u201cThe concept of a constitutional bench was introduced by the 26th Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice Mandokhail interjected, \u201cIt was not introduced by us \u2014 it was given by Parliament, so don\u2019t blame us.\u201d When Khan urged the bench to \u201cforget about Article 191A for a moment,\u201d Justice Mazhar retorted, \u201cIf we forget it, then the constitutional bench ceases to exist \u2014 then why are we even sitting here?\u201d<\/p>\n

At this point, Justice Aminuddin Khan observed, \u201cIf we forget this, then the Supreme Court itself would cease to exist today,\u201d while Justice Mandokhail added, \u201cIf the existence of this constitutional bench ends, then how can we issue any orders?\u201d<\/p>\n

The petitioners\u2019 counsel further argued that all previous \u201ccases involving significant constitutional questions\u201d had been heard by full court benches, citing precedents dating back to 1955, and maintained that the present petitions \u2014 which question the judiciary\u2019s independence and structural integrity \u2014 merit the same approach.<\/p>\n

During the hearing, Justice Ayesha Malik questioned the petitioner\u2019s stance, asking, \u201cWhere is the bar in the 26th Constitutional Amendment that prevents the constitution of a full court?\u201d The query was directed at Hamid Khan as he continued to press for the inclusion of all judges in hearing the case.<\/p>\n

According to the Supreme Court\u2019s website, there are currently 24 judges in the apex court, including Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, following the appointment of six new judges in February this year.<\/p>\n

The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow (Wednesday) at 11:30 am.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCB3kKmqpeTcb3mjdJhb6Epg<\/p>\n

SC commences proceedings on 26th Amendment petitions<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed live streaming of the proceedings on petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment, marking a major step toward transparency in a case that has triggered one of the most consequential constitutional debates in recent years.<\/p>\n

An eight-member Constitutional Bench (CB) led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan granted the petitioners\u2019 request. The bench\u2019s unanimous decision was welcomed by lawyers and civil society, who called it a vital move to ensure “public access” to judicial proceedings involving issues of fundamental importance.<\/p>\n

Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii noted that live streaming in such cases had been recognised by the apex court as a public obligation. \u201cIt opens the doors of justice to everyone with an internet connection and allows access to the process of judicial decision-making. It should be the norm in every superior court,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The latest hearing began with the bench taking up a cluster of petitions against the 26th Amendment\u2014legislation that restructured judicial powers, altered tenure norms, and sparked deep concern over the independence of the judiciary. The court indicated it would first address pleas seeking the formation of a full court before moving to procedural requests such as live streaming.<\/p>\n

Tehreek-i-Tahaffuz Ayeen-i-Pakistan Chairperson Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, represented by Advocate Shahid Jameel, pressed for the constitution of a full court, noting that \u201cobjections were raised on our petition regarding the formation of a full court.\u201d Following deliberations, the bench ordered the petition to be formally registered.<\/p>\n

Khawaja Ahmad Hosain, counsel for former Chief Justice Jawad S Khawaja, requested that the proceedings be broadcast live, arguing that \u201cthe entire nation wants to see what is happening.\u201d He also supported live streaming of the full court plea, stressing that the matter\u2019s constitutional gravity demanded complete transparency.<\/p>\n

Barrister Salahuddin argued that \u201cevery citizen should have access to information of public importance,\u201d adding that the 26th Amendment was passed \u201cin the dead of night\u201d without public debate. The Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa government\u2019s representative said his side had \u201cno personal objection to any judge on the bench.\u201d<\/p>\n

After hearing arguments, the court ruled in favour of live streaming the proceedings and adjourned the case until today.<\/p>\n

Read: SC to live stream hearings challenging 26th Constitutional Amendment<\/p>\n

However, legal experts caution that the petitioners\u2019 real challenge will be to persuade the CB to order the constitution of a full court to hear the matter, as several lawyers argue that a bench formed under the contested amendment cannot impartially decide its own validity.<\/p>\n

Former senator Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar has already filed a petition seeking implementation of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act Committee\u2019s majority decision, which directed that petitions against the amendment be heard by a full court. The committee\u2019s 2-1 majority ruling\u2014issued on October 31, 2024\u2014had ordered the SC Registrar to list the case for November 4, but it was never scheduled. The CB has now ordered that Khokhar\u2019s petition be listed along with objections.<\/p>\n

Khokhar termed the case one of the most consequential in Pakistan\u2019s judicial history, saying the judiciary now faces a defining choice: to \u201creassert its independence or submit entirely to those traditionally hostile to it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Observers note that the exclusion of senior judges like Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Athar Minallah, Shahid Waheed, and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan could undermine the bench\u2019s legitimacy. They also question how a CB created under the 26th Amendment can adjudicate its own constitutionality.<\/p>\n

Currently, the CB has 15 members, though previous challenges to constitutional amendments\u2014such as the 18th and 21st\u2014were heard by 17-member full courts.<\/p>\n

Case History and Context<\/p>\n

The 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2024, passed in October last year, brought sweeping changes to Pakistan\u2019s judicial structure. It abolished the Supreme Court\u2019s suo motu powers under Article 184(3), fixed a three-year term for the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), and authorised the prime minister\u2014through a parliamentary committee\u2014to appoint the next CJP from among the three most senior judges.<\/p>\n

The amendment also restructured the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), expanded parliamentary oversight in bench formation, and mandated the elimination of interest (Riba) from the financial system by January 1, 2028.<\/p>\n

A total of 36 petitions filed by high court bar associations, PTI, civil society representatives, and former judges challenge the amendment, calling it an assault on judicial independence.<\/p>\n

They argue that it shifts control over key judicial functions\u2014appointments, nominations, and bench compositions\u2014towards the executive, upsetting the constitutional balance of power.<\/p>\n

Petitioners also allege that the amendment was rushed through Parliament without meaningful debate or proper two-thirds approval under Article 239 of the Constitution. They urge the Supreme Court to strike it down entirely or, at minimum, annul clauses altering the CJP\u2019s appointment mechanism and the JCP\u2019s composition.<\/p>\n

Critics argue that the removal of suo motu powers strips the court of its ability to protect citizens\u2019 fundamental rights, particularly in cases where vulnerable groups cannot approach the court directly. Proponents, however, claim it prevents judicial overreach and restores democratic balance.<\/p>\n

Earlier, Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar had urged Chief Justice Yahya Afridi to convene a full court, citing the \u201cconstitutional magnitude\u201d of the issue. The CJP declined, reasoning that a full court could expose internal judicial deliberations to unnecessary public scrutiny.<\/p>\n

Petitioners continue to demand that the entire Supreme Court hear the matter, pointing to precedents like the 18th and 21st Amendment cases and the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, where full benches were formed due to similar constitutional stakes.<\/p>\n

With live streaming now approved, all eyes are on whether the CB will take the next crucial step\u2014ordering a full court\u2014to ensure that the judiciary\u2019s own restructuring is debated by all its members in full public view.<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As the Supreme Court began live-streaming proceedings on petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the Constitutional Bench (CB) heard arguments on a plea seeking the formation of a \u201cfull court\u201d \u2014 a move seen as crucial for collective judicial deliberation on a case concerning the court\u2019s own structure. The petitioners\u2019 counsel argued that Article 191A […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22489","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-english-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipp-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22489","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipp-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipp-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipp-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipp-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=22489"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ipp-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22489\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipp-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=22489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipp-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=22489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipp-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=22489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}