Supreme Court’s Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked on Thursday that whether willingly or not, the judges of the apex court have accepted the 26th Constitutional Amendment. His comments came during the hearing of multiple petitions filed against the amendment passed by Parliament in October last year. The case was heard by an eight-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and live-streamed on the Supreme Court’s official YouTube channel.
The bench, which includes Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha A Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhter Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan, resumed the proceedings after a nine-month gap.
Petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment were filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), several bar associations, and former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). The amendment introduces major changes in judicial appointments and administration, including parliamentary involvement in selecting the Chief Justice, determining the top judge’s tenure, and forming constitutional benches.
During Thursday’s hearing, Balochistan High Court Bar Association’s lawyer Munir A Malik supported the arguments earlier presented by LHCBA lawyer Hamid Khan. He urged that the case should ideally be heard by a full court, stating that the Supreme Court retained its judicial powers despite the amendment and that any bench constituted by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) was valid.
Justice Ayesha questioned whether forming a full court was still possible after the 26th Amendment, to which Malik responded that the amendment had not curtailed the Court’s authority. Justice Musarrat Hilali raised concerns about the jurisdiction of the current bench, suggesting that judges promoted after the amendment should not be part of it.
Justice Mandokhail, however, countered this notion, asking whether the new judges had been “brought from another country.” Justice Mazhar added that the newly elevated judges had served as high court chief justices and were unconnected to the amendment itself. Justice Hilali later clarified that her comments were not intended to cast aspersions on any judge.
Justice Mandokhail reiterated that all judges were honourable and reminded the court that both he and the Chief Justice had repeatedly advocated for the inclusion of all judges in constitutional matters.
Later, lawyer Abid Zuberi, representing six former SCBA presidents, argued that a full court did not necessarily require all judges to be present and that a quorum of available judges could suffice. He suggested that the bench could direct the Supreme Court’s Practice and Procedure Committee—formed before the 26th Amendment—to assemble a full court if necessary.
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing till Monday next week.
