ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench will reconvene on September 8, ending a break of more than two months. The bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, last sat on June 27 when it struck down an earlier ruling that had granted the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf reserved seats in legislatures.
According to the latest court roster, the five-member bench will take up constitutional and legal interpretation cases from September 8 to 12. It is also expected to resume hearings in the super tax case during this period.
Since November, the fate of the 26th Constitutional Amendment has remained undecided. The case briefly came before the bench in January but was adjourned and has not returned to the docket. Questions continue to surround the very formation of the constitutional bench, with critics pointing out the conflict of interest in allowing beneficiaries of the amendment to rule on its validity.
The makeup of the Supreme Court has shifted significantly since February, with eight new judges elevated to the bench. Many of them are now part of the constitutional benches. Despite 15 judges being nominated for this role, rules governing their functioning have yet to be framed, even though Article 191A(6) clearly empowers them to do so. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail also raised this issue during proceedings on the reserved seats case.
So far, the constitutional bench has issued three landmark rulings: overturning the PTI’s claim to reserved seats, upholding the trial of PTI workers in military courts, and endorsing the executive-driven transfer of high court judges to the Islamabad High Court. However, detailed judgments in these cases remain pending. While two minority judges have released their opinions in the military courts case, the majority judgment has yet to be announced despite being reserved in early May.
The bench is also expected to deliver a ruling on the Sunni Ittehad Council’s challenge to the composition of the bench hearing review petitions in the reserved seats matter. Meanwhile, Islamabad High Court judges have appealed the decision approving their transfers, with their case likely to be taken up in the next judicial year.
Observers warn that continued delays, particularly on the 26th Constitutional Amendment, risk deepening public skepticism about the judiciary. Concerns are also being voiced over the exclusion of dissenting judges from the bench, adding to questions about transparency and judicial independence.
