26th Amendment case: SC constitutional bench debates scope of full court

Islamabad (Web Desk): The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday conducted an in-depth hearing on petitions contesting the 26th Constitutional Amendment, focusing on whether a full court should be constituted to decide the matter.

The proceedings were presided over by an eight-member constitutional bench led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, which later adjourned the case until October 13.

At the beginning of the session, Advocate Munir A. Malik, representing the Balochistan High Court Bar Association, informed the court that he agreed with the earlier arguments made by

Advocate Hamid Khan and intended to elaborate on them with additional points.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned whether Malik also shared Hamid Khan’s opinion that the 26th Amendment ought to be annulled. Malik replied that a full court had already been in place before the amendment came into effect. Justice Mandokhail then asked if forming a full court was an obligation or simply a request before the bench.

Justice Ayesha Malik sought to know whether there was any legal restriction against forming a full court, while Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired whether the current bench itself had the authority to constitute one.

Responding to these questions, Advocate Malik stated that all benches—whether constitutional or regular—possessed equal judicial powers. Justice Ayesha Malik noted that the Supreme Court had historically interpreted and relied directly on the Constitution, rather than depending on amendments.

Malik insisted that the issue should be referred to a full court, arguing that a matter of such constitutional significance must be heard by all the judges of the Supreme Court.

Justice Musarrat Hilali raised the question of how the present bench could determine its own jurisdiction, to which Malik replied that even if the jurisdiction were questioned, the bench’s judicial authority remained intact.

Justice Hilali remarked that judges promoted under the 26th Amendment should not be part of the bench. In response, Justice Mandokhail said, “We were judges even before the amendment — have new judges been imported from another country?”

Later in the proceedings, Advocate Abid Zuberi, appearing for six former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association, argued that the Practice and Procedure Committee was empowered to issue directions for the formation of a full court.

After hearing the arguments, the bench adjourned further proceedings until October 13 (Monday).