More than four months ago its formation, the constitutional bench has not yet handed down decisions on critical cases and raises concerns about the Legal Director.
On November 4, 2024, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) nominated eight judges for the constitutional bench by majority in which government -supported members play a crucial role in selection.
The bench, led by justice Aminuddin Khan, was expected to decide on the trial against civilians in military courts. Although the conditionally allowed military courts to give judgments in cases related to the events on May 9, the bench has not yet completed the procedure – despite having held 46 hearings.
The case is set to resume next month, with the Ministry of Defense’s adviser Khawaja Haris that he requires at least eight more hearings to end his counter -movement.
In addition, the constitutional bench has also not been able to take two other crucial cases due to the long -term hearings in the case of the military court.
In January, a bench led by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah raised the question of whether a regular bench could be prevented from hearing questions related to the interpretation of the law and the constitution.
Then the Constitutional Bench Committee planned hearings on petitions that challenged the 26th change on January 28.
However, the eight-member constitutional bench only conducted a hearing before postponing the case for three weeks. More than 50 days have passed since and the case has not yet been planned for further procedures.
Similarly, another important case is pending, the dispute of seniority in Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges.
Five IHC judges have challenged the transfer of three judges from different high courts to IHC. They have requested the Supreme Court and tried to regain their seniority, which was changed after the transfers.
The battle is particularly about justice Sarfraz Dogar from Lahore High Court (LHC), who became senior Puisne judge and replaced Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani.
The petries claim that the seniority of transferred judges must be determined only after they make a fresh oath. Several bar associations have also challenged these transfers, and PTI has filed a constitutional petition on the same question.
While these petitions are allocated, they are not yet planned for hearings.
Legal experts believe that keeping the status quo in these crucial cases playing in the hands of the exercise.
Military courts have already handed down judgment, and the defendants are now serving their judgments – the case closed, at least for now.
Meanwhile, with the 26th amendment that is rolled out without any problems, the government sees no urgent need to touch the pot.
Similarly, the government’s plan for IHC is unfolded without a wrinkle. Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar has the fort as acting IHC high -ranking, and unlike before, the administration does not run into roadblocks on this front.
Karachi Bar Association through lawyer Faisal Siddiqi has also challenged the transfer of the three judges to IHC.
The 26th amendment to the vests exclusive authority in the constitutional bench to interpret the law and the constitution, which prevents regular benches from exercising jurisdiction in this regard.
However, the constitutional bench has not yet weighed in any legal point since November last year, with concern that it was high time that the bench set case law in public interest.
Experts have claimed that the constitutional bench in order to empty the overreaction of the court must draw clear lines for the exercise of jurisdiction in the public in accordance with Article 184 (2) of the Constitution. 3.
