Justice Mandokhail Says Justice Yahya Afridi Wouldn’t Have Become Chief Justice Without 26th Constitutional Amendment

Islamabad: During the Supreme Court hearing on petitions challenging the **26th Constitutional Amendment**, **Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail** remarked that if the **26th Amendment** had not been enacted, **Justice Yahya Afridi** would not have become **Chief Justice**, as his term would have ended before the current Chief Justice’s tenure concluded.

An **eight-member constitutional bench** headed by **Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan** heard the case.

During the proceedings, **Justice Ayesha Malik** asked counsel **Abid Zuberi** if he wanted a **full court** to hear the matter since it involved a constitutional amendment. Zuberi responded that a full court would allow the collective wisdom of all judges to prevail.

At this, **Justice Mandokhail** questioned, “Why do you propose a full court of only 17 judges? Why not all 24?” He further asked why the petitioner wanted a full court composed of judges who were in office before the 26th Amendment.

Justice Mandokhail noted, “If we are beneficiaries of the 26th Amendment, can we still sit on this bench? Without the amendment, Justice Yahya Afridi could not have become Chief Justice — his tenure was fixed. May Allah grant long life to the current Chief Justice, but under the previous framework, the senior puisne judge would have been Chief Justice instead.”

Justice Mandokhail also observed that forming a full court of pre-amendment judges would require **excluding some current judges**. He asked whether the petitioner would accept it if the **Judicial Commission** declared all Supreme Court judges as part of the constitutional bench, to which Zuberi replied in the affirmative.

The court **adjourned the hearing until tomorrow**.