The Benches Constitution in high-profile cases has been a contentious question in the Supreme Court since March 2009.

The term “like -minded bench” continues to carry weight, even after the 26th constitutional amendment, which required the nomination of judges of constitutional benches to be approved by the legal commission in Pakistan (JCP).

The director retains a significant influence on JCP’s decision -making, both in the appointment of judges and in their selection for constitutional benches.

A section of the Legal Brotherhood believes that judicial independence has been compromised due to how JCP works. Some senior peak judges have been accused of facilitating the executive in his sway over JCP decisions.

It is a question of a record that the country’s three major political parties papers, PML-N and PPP-all have been at the receiving end of judgments adopted by so-called like-minded benches since 2009.

Before the 26th change was adopted, the chief court was often accused of forming like -minded benches to ensure favorable results.

The term received additional currency during the term of office of former Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, as judges who were perceived as hostile to PML-N were consistently awarded political consequence cases, which in many ways reshaped national politics.

Similar concerns were raised during the tenure of the former CJPS Gulzar Ahmed and Umar Ata Bandial, where PML-N and PPP often question the composition of benches in sensitive cases.

In order to introduce transparency in bench formation, the Supreme Court (practice and procedure) was adopted by law 2023, thereby constituting a three-member committee of senior judges, including Chief Justice, is benches.

Later to further consolidate control of judicial appointments, the 26th amendment was adopted, giving the JCP authority to select judges of constitutional benches, where it is reportedly maintaining a significant turn.

The judges, who are perceived as likely to ask tough questions, have in many cases been sidelines from constitutional benches.

Despite the fact that the amendment has been in effect for over six months, no clear criteria have yet been formulated to nominate judges to these benches.

Currently, 15 judges from the entire provinces are nominated for constitutional benches.

However, several senior judges who are considered not to be in the “good books” of the exercise have been left out, despite being among the most respected and competent members of the bench.

The current committee, responsible for choosing judges for constitutional benches, is led by justice Aminuddin Khan and includes justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.

The behavior of this committee has also been examined to allegedly have continued the tendency of forming like -minded benches in high -profile cases.

For example, the committee did not nomine the righteousness Shahid Waheed to the bench that heard the military court case.

Similarly, judges with expertise in tax cases were not included on the bench that assessed the Super Tax case.

Recently, the Committee has criticized five judges from the Bench Hearing Review petitions in the case Reserved SEATS, which challenges SC’s 12th July decision.

Faisal Siddiqi, adviser to Sunni Intehad Council (SIC), has formally challenged the composition of this bench.

Even sitting judges – Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi – have raised serious concerns about the composition of the larger bench that heard the petitions.

During Tuesday’s consultation, signs of a shared bench were visible.

Justice Aminuddin Khan seemed to be reluctant to give time to SIC’s lawyer to submit an application that contests the composition of the bench.

However, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail intervened and emphasized that the lawyer should have a fair opportunity to resume objections.

After this intervention, the bench decided to postpone the procedure until Monday.

A growing view has taken hold: While former CJPs were seen as formed like -minded benches, the current dynamic suggests that “government -adjusted” benches are now formed with the tacit cooperation between certain judges.

Unless transparency is brought to the process of constituting benches, the legitimacy of the judiciary can increasingly come under doubt.