ISLAMABAD: Head of the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, on Monday voiced support for the 26th Constitutional Amendment, dismissing suggestions that it was “controversial.”
“Don’t say that the 26th Amendment is controversial,” remarked Justice Amin-ud-Din while presiding over an eight-member bench hearing a series of petitions challenging the constitutional changes approved by parliament in October last year.
The bench comprised Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
Nearly three dozen petitions — including those filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), Lahore High Court Bar Association, Lahore Bar Association, Karachi Bar Association, seven former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), and several individuals — have challenged the amendment’s legality.
Appearing in person, senior lawyer Akram Sheikh urged the court to form a 24-member full bench to hear the case. “The court should not be further packed by adding more judges,” he argued, adding that he would “leave the issue of conflict of interest to the judges themselves.”
Sheikh maintained that the judiciary must adhere to the principle of stare decisis (precedent). Referring to the recent elections, he said that certain individuals believed the results warranted scrutiny, which, according to him, “laid the foundation for the 26th Amendment.”
“The 26th Amendment has shattered the Constitution and undermined one of the state’s key organs — the judiciary,” he contended. “I hope Allah gives the judges courage to declare this amendment null and void.”
At this point, Justice Mandokhail questioned whether Sheikh was suggesting the amendment be struck down despite being part of the Constitution. Justice Amin-ud-Din, meanwhile, observed that Sheikh had not raised a single constitutional or legal argument to support his stance.
The lawyer, however, maintained that existing precedents disqualified the current eight-member bench from hearing the matter. When he further argued that the entire Supreme Court should decide on the validity of Article 191-A, Justice Amin-ud-Din responded: “If you think you need to go to the competent forum, then approach the chief justice.”
Explaining the nature of the Constitutional Bench, Justice Mandokhail noted that judges perform two distinct roles — one as regular judges and the other as members of constitutional benches.
Justice Bilal Hassan then asked, “You argue that the eight judges cannot hear this case because they are beneficiaries. Then who, in your opinion, is not affected by the 26th Amendment and should adjudicate it?”
Justice Mazhar questioned whether Sheikh was suggesting that all 24 judges of the Supreme Court should hear the case. Sheikh replied that any judge whose conscience was disturbed “should voluntarily recuse.”
Later, petitioner Shabbar Raza Rizvi contended that the Supreme Court’s Practice and Procedure Committee could constitute a full court to hear the petitions. “This case should be heard by the Supreme Court as a whole, not just a bench,” he argued.
When Justice Mandokhail asked whether he wanted 16 or 24 judges to take up the case, Rizvi said, “I have no objection to 24 judges hearing it.”
The court subsequently adjourned the proceedings until Wednesday at 11:30 a.m.
