The Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court to resume the audiences of requests that question the 26th constitutional amendment today. The live broadcast of procedures will be available on the YouTube channel “Supreme Court of Pakistan”.
SC begins the requests for the requests of the 26th amendment
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court allowed the live broadcast of the procedures on requests that challenge the 26th constitutional amendment, marking an important step towards transparency in a case that has triggered one of the most consistent constitutional debates in recent years.
A Constitutional Bank of eight members (CB) led by Judge Amin-Din Khan granted the request of the petitioners. The unanimous decision of the bank was welcomed by lawyers and civil society, who qualified it a vital movement to guarantee “public access” to judicial procedures that involve issues of fundamental importance.
Abdul Moiz Jaferii lawyer said that live broadcast in such cases had been recognized by the Apex court as a public obligation. “Open the doors of justice to all with an Internet connection and allows access to the judicial decision making process. It should be the norm in all higher courts,” he said.
The last hearing began with the bank that occupied a group of requests against the 26th amendment, the legislation that restructured the judicial powers, the altered norms of tenure and caused a deep concern for the independence of the Judiciary. The Court indicated that it would first address the supplications that seek the formation of a complete court before moving to procedural applications, such as live broadcast.
Tehreek-i-Tahaffuz Ayeen-I-Pakistán Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, represented by lawyer Shahid Jameel, pressed by the constitution of a complete court, pointing out that “the objections in our request regarding the formation of a complete court were raised.” After the deliberations, the bank ordered the request to be formally registered.
Khawaja Ahmad Hosain, lawyer of the former president of the Supreme Court Jawad S Khawaja, requested that the procedures be broadcast live, arguing that “the whole nation wants to see what is happening.” He also supported the live transmission of the complete supplication of the Court, stressing that the constitutional severity of the matter demanded full transparency.
The lawyer Salahuddin argued that “all citizens should have access to public importance information,” added that amendment 26 was approved “at night” without public debate. Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa’s government representative said his team did not have “personal objection to any judge in the bank.”
After listening to the arguments, the court ruled in favor of the live broadcast of the procedures and postponed the case until today.
However, legal experts warn that the true challenge of the petitioners will be to persuade the CB to order the constitution of a complete court that listens to the matter, since several lawyers argue that a bank formed under the disputed amendment cannot impart impartially its own validity.
Former Senator Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar has already presented a request that seeks the implementation of the majority decision of the Committee of the Supreme Court Law (practice and procedure), which directed a complete court to listen to the requests against the amendment. The majority ruling of 2-1 of the Committee, issued on October 31, 2024, had ordered the SC registrar to list the case for November 4, but was never scheduled. The CB has ordered that Khokhar’s request is listed together with the objections.
Khokhar described the case one of the most important in the judicial history of Pakistan, saying that the Judiciary now faces a decisive election: “to reaffirm its independence or completely submit to those traditionally hostile to it.”
The observers point out that the exclusion of superior judges such as Judges Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Athar Mining, Shahid Waheed and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan could undermine the legitimacy of the bank. They also question how a CB created under amendment 26 can judge its own constitutionality.
Currently, the CB has 15 members, although the challenges prior to the constitutional amendments, such as 18 and 21, were heard by the complete courts of 17 members.
Case history and context
The 26th Constitutional Amendment Law, 2024, approved in October last year, brought radical changes to the judicial structure of Pakistan. He abolished the Suo Motu powers of the Supreme Court under article 184 (3), arranged a three -year period for the president of the president of Pakistan (CJP) and authorized the prime minister, through a parliamentary committee, to appoint the next CJP among the three most senior judges.
The amendment also restructured the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), extended parliamentary supervision in bank formation and ordered the elimination of interests (RIBA) of the financial system before January 1, 2028.
A total of 36 requests presented by associations of lawyers of the Superior Court, PTI, representatives of civil society and former judges challenge the amendment, qualifying it as an assault on judicial independence. They argue that control over key judicial functions (Bank nominations and compositions) rises to the Executive, altering the constitutional balance of power.
The petitioners also claim that the amendment was run by Parliament without a significant debate or adequate approval of two thirds under article 239 of the Constitution. They urge the Supreme Court to cancel it completely or, at least, cancel the clauses that alter the CJP appointment mechanism and the JCP composition.
Critics argue that the elimination of Suo Motu powers strips the court to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly in cases where vulnerable groups cannot directly address the court. The defenders, however, claim that it avoids judicial overreach and restores democratic balance.
Previously, Judges Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar had urged the president of the Supreme Court Yahya Afridi to convene a complete court, citing the “constitutional magnitude” of the problem. The CJP decreased, reasoning that a complete court could expose internal judicial deliberations to unnecessary public scrutiny.
The petitioners continue to demand that the entire Supreme Court listen to the matter, pointing out precedents such as the cases of amendment 18 and 21 and the Law of the Supreme Court (practice and procedure), 2023, where complete banks were formed due to similar constitutional bets.
With the live broadcast now approved, all the eyes are in itself the CB will take the next crucial step, order a complete court, to ensure that all its members discussed the restructuring of the Judiciary in public vision.
