Supreme Court Questions Bench Formation in Hearing Against 26th Constitutional Amendment

Islamabad: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday heard petitions challenging the **26th Constitutional Amendment** before an **eight-member constitutional bench**, where sharp questions were raised over the formation of the constitutional bench and calls for a full court.

The bench, headed by **Justice Aminuddin Khan**, included **Justice Jamal 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, **Advocate Abid Zuberi**, representing various bar associations, argued that the case should be heard by a **full court comprising judges appointed prior to the 26th Amendment**, emphasizing that the nature of the case was constitutional and thus merited full court consideration.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned, *“Does any party have the right to demand a specific bench? If we accept your request, will that mean the judges, too, will be of your choice?”* To this, Zuberi clarified that he was not seeking specific judges but the constitution of a full court.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired, *“If the very amendment that established this constitutional bench is being challenged, then who will decide the matter?”* He added that under **Article 191A**, constitutional matters must be heard by a constitutional bench, and the Constitution does not explicitly provide for a full court.

Justice Ayesha Malik asked, *“What exactly is your petition seeking?”* to which the lawyer replied that only judges appointed before the 26th Amendment should hear the case. Justice Mandokhail countered, *“If your argument is accepted, current judges would have to be excluded — then who will hear the case?”*

Justice Naeem Afghan remarked that the lawyer’s arguments were based on pre-amendment provisions, noting that *“under the current Constitution, the composition of benches is clearly defined, and even the Chief Justice cannot alter the constitutional bench.”*

Justice Jamal Mandokhail further observed, *“The Chief Justice himself was appointed under the 26th Amendment. If this amendment had not existed, would Justice Yahya Afridi have been Chief Justice? If we are beneficiaries, can we hear the case ourselves?”*

Zuberi responded that he was not questioning any judge’s impartiality but only requesting a full court in the interest of constitutional clarity.

The bench engaged in detailed discussions on the **scope of the constitutional bench, the powers of the Chief Justice,** and **interpretation of Article 191A.**

Justice Mandokhail asked, *“Why are you requesting a 17-member full court when there are currently 24 judges in the Supreme Court?”* Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that the term *“full court”* does not appear in the Constitution, reiterating that only a constitutional bench can hear constitutional matters.

After extensive arguments, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing on the petitions against the **26th Constitutional Amendment** until **Tuesday.