Islamabad:
Sunni Intehad Council (SIC) has requested the Supreme Court to postpone the case in the case to reserved seats until a decision has reached challenges for the 26th constitutional amendment.
Sic and its chairman, SaBzada Hamid Raza, have submitted three applications for the Point Court and sought a live telecast of the trial and a reconstitution of the current review bench, which proposes it to be replaced with the original 12-judgment bench that gave on July 12, 2024, in favor of PTI’s claim of all reserved seats.
A constitutional bench of 11 members is scheduled to resume hearings of the petitions for the audit on Monday.
One of the applications notes that a large number of petitions that challenge the 26th change is currently pending before SC.
“The newly added Article 191a (5) stipulates that all petitions, appeals or review of applications for judgments issued or orders adopted as clause (3) is valid, pending, or submitted in the Supreme Court before the beginning of the Constitution (Legal trains (Legal Rates), 2024, immediately transferred to the Authority Bench and shall only Beek conditions, under the adhesive (4).
The application claims that there is a sharp and well -off difference between an appeal and a review competence, as a petition or application for review or application is heard by the same bench that adopted the judgment.
“An appeal is a continuation of the original procedure, while the review of jurisdiction is governed by Article 188 of the Constitution read with the Supreme Court’s rules, 1980. It is filed that Rule 8 of Order XXVI in the Supreme Court rules, 1980, determines that, as far as possible, there is a review of a review application for the same bench.
It is argued that since Article 188 explicitly determines that such a jurisdiction must be exercised in accordance with the rules – which requires a petition to be heard by the same bench that handed the judgment – and that it is the original provision as adopted by the constituent assembly, there is a patent conflict with Article 191a (5).
The latter, after being adopted by Majlis-E-Shoora (Parliament), is argued to lack both legitimacy and moral authority.
Therefore, the latter provision is, to the extent that it places review of applications before the constitutional bench, invalid and the Constitution of the Ultra Vires.
“Even otherwise, The Amending Power Under Article 239 of the Constitution is to be Exercised As A Sacred Trust, As Ordained by The Preamble To The Constitution. The AFORESAID ARTICLE 191A (5), Added Through The 26th Amendment – Incend Constitutional Bench and Given Retrospective Effect – Was, with Utmost Respect, A Fraud Upon The Electorate.
The petition also claims that the right to a fair trial has been raised specifically in the petition that challenges Vires in the 26th amendment.
It is also argued that Article 191a (5), to the extent that it transmits a review of jurisdiction to the constitutional bench, is in conflict with Article 10A of the Constitution and thus invalid.
“Article 191a (2).
The application also states that the legal commission in Pakistan, which constitutes the constitutional bench, is almost under control of the executive director and thereby can affect the exercise of SC’s jurisdiction.
It notes that the top judges of the supreme court are not included in the constitutional benches formed in recent months, which compromises the independence of the court.
