Tehreek Tahaffuz-Ein Vice President, Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, has pledged the Supreme Court and has been seeking the implementation of a majority decision taken by the Supreme Court (SC), (practice and procedure), (PAPA) to determine petitions against the 26th constitutional amendment to a full court.
The committee, with a 2-1 majority on October 31, 2023, ordered the SC registrar to indicate the petitions on November 4th. However, the cases were not planned for consultation.
Through lawyer Shahid Jamil Khan, Khokhar filed the petition in accordance with Article 184 (2) of the Constitution.
Read: SCBA pushes to sweep SC -Reforms
He claimed that neither the Justice Secretary nor any administrative authority has the competence to disregard a legal order from the committee.
The petition argued that legal independence is a fundamental constitutional principle and deviation undermines the rule of law, fair trial and proper process in accordance with Articles 4, 9, 10a and 25.
It further stated that the reasons cited by the Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, including informal consultations and jurisdictional objections, have no legal basis for overriding the committee’s formal decision under statutory mandate.
Khokhar claimed that non -compliance with the committee’s order constitutes administrative dishonesty, frustrates regulatory intention and undermines SC’s collective authority that violates transparency, collegiality and institutional integrity.
The rejection of implementing the order, the petition, adding, stakeholders depriving their right to fair consultation and timely assessment of constitutional challenges that violate articles 4, 10a and 25.
Read more: CJP is facing criticism for bypassing the majority decision to hear petitions challenge 26. Amendments
Previously, CJP Afridi was facing criticism after the SC committee minister revealed that he ignored a majority decision to form a full court in petitions against the 26th constitutional amendment.
In October 2023, Justice’s Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar of 2-1 ordered the registrar to establish hearings before a full court on November 4th.
CJP claimed that the committee was missing authority and instead consulted judges individually, with nine supporting a constitutional bench.
Lawyers questioned CJP’s steps and called the informal vote of the judges illegal and a violation of the committee’s binding decision. Critics said avoiding a full court undermined transparency and legal independence.
Since then, the constitutional bench has not decided the case, while the legality of the bench is also under challenge.
Judges Shah and Akhtar have repeatedly called on CJP to convene a full court, arguing that the amendment has far -reaching constitutional consequences.
