ISLAMABAD, Oct 20 (APP) – The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday adjourned until Tuesday the hearing of several petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
An eight-member larger bench, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, heard the case. The bench also included Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan. The proceedings were live-streamed to ensure transparency and public access.
Petitioners question bench in 26th Constitutional Amendment case
At the outset, senior lawyer Akram Sheikh, appearing as one of the petitioners, questioned the constitutional competence of the current bench. He argued that since the eight-member bench had been formed under the same 26th Constitutional Amendment being challenged, it should not hear the case.
Sheikh urged the formation of a full court comprising all 24 judges of the Supreme Court to decide the constitutional issue. He said the entire court should decide such an important matter. If any judge felt it inappropriate to sit on the bench, they could recuse themselves.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked whether including all judges might create a conflict of interest. Sheikh replied that a smaller bench could not overrule a decision made by a larger one.
Bench observations and further arguments
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that forming a full court in the current situation would be “like an over-pampered child asking for the moon,” raising doubts about the practicality of such a demand.
Later, lawyer Shabbir Raza Rizvi also argued that constitutional issues, such as the 26th Constitutional Amendment, should be heard by the full Supreme Court rather than a specific constitutional bench. He said a joint reading of Articles 176 and 191-A made it clear that such cases fell within the jurisdiction of the full 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. In response, Rizvi said the issue was directly linked to the independence of the judiciary and called on the bench to take a principled stand.
Hearing adjourned until Tuesday
After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, the bench adjourned the proceedings until Tuesday at 11 a.m. The case will continue to determine whether the petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment should be heard by the current bench or by the entire Supreme Court.