The Supreme Court fought on Thursday with whether it has “authority” to impose the formation of a full court under Article 191a while hearing challenges to the 26th constitutional change.
Attorney Munir A Malik, one of the petitioners’ lawyer claimed that the current constitutional bench retains full legal powers to issue such a direction, but the judges questioned whether any constitutional or legal provision forces the right to form a full bench or define its scope.
The APEX Court yesterday live-streamed procedure for the previous consultation held on petitions challenging the 26th constitutional change with arguments that focus on a plea to constitute a full court to hear the case. The petries called for the same “16 -member” bench that existed when the amendment was adopted in October 2024, should now be aware of its legality to maintain continuity and constitutional legitimacy.
They argued that all major constitutional cases in the past – including those in the 18th and 21st change – were heard by full court benches, and emphasized that the current petitions directly relating to legal independence deserve similar treatment.
However, the bench pressed the lawyer to identify the specific constitutional or statutory basis for such a reconstitution that asked for what provision it could form a full court that established the basis for today’s consultation.
SC begins the procedure on the 26th amendment
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed live streaming of the petition procedure that challenged the 26th constitutional amendment, marking a major step towards transparency in a case that has triggered one of the most consequent constitutional debates in recent years.
An Eight Member Constitution Bench (CB) led by Justice Amin-out-Din Khan addressed the request of the petitioners. The unanimous decision of the bench was welcomed by lawyers and civil society, who called it an important step to secure “public access” to litigation involving issues of fundamental importance.
Attorney Abdul Moiz Jaferii noted that live streaming in such cases had been recognized by the right of peak as a public obligation. “It opens doors to justice for anyone with an internet connection and gives access to the process of judicial decision making. It should be the norm in any superior court,” he said.
In a previous consultation, the bench took a cluster of petitions against the 26th amendment – legislation that restructured legal powers changed employment standards and triggered deep concern about the independence of the judiciary. The court indicated that it would first address the pleas who seek the formation of a full court before moving to procedural requests, such as live streaming.
Tehreek-I-Tahaffuz Ayeen-in-Pakistan Chairman Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, represented by lawyer Shahid Jameel, pressed for a full court’s constitution and noted that “objections were raised on our petition regarding the formation of a full court.” After considerations, the bench ordered the petition to be formally registered.
Khawaja Ahmad Hosain, adviser to former Chief Justice Jawad’s Khawaja, requested that the procedure be sent live and argued that “the whole nation wants to see what happens.” He also supported live streaming of the full court placing and emphasized that the constitutional gravity of the case required complete transparency.
Barrister Salahuddin claimed that “every citizen should have access to information of public importance”, adding that the 26th change was adopted “at night” without public debate. The Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa government’s representative said his side did not have “any personal objection to any judge on the bench.”
After hearing the arguments gave the right in favor of the live streaming case.
Read: SC to Live Stream -Hearings that challenge 26. Constitutional amendment
However, legal experts warn that the real challenge of the petitioners would be to persuade CB to impose a full court of the court to hear the case as several lawyers claim that a bench formed during the disputed change cannot illustrate its own validity.
Former Senator Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar has already filed a petition seeking the implementation of the Supreme Court (practice and procedure), the committee’s majority decision, which ordered the petition against the amendment to a full court. The committee’s 2-1 majority decision-decision was issued on October 31, 2024-had ordered the SC registrar to indicate the case for November 4, but it was never planned. CB has now ordered Khokhar’s petition to be erected together with objections.
Khokhar called the case one of the most consequences in Pakistan’s legal history and said that the judiciary is now facing a defining choice: “to” repeat his independence or submit to those who are traditionally hostile to it. “
Observers note that the exclusion of older judges such as Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, At Har Minallah, Shahid Waheed and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan could undermine the legitimacy of the bench. They also question how a CB created during the 26th change can judge its own constitutionality.
Currently, CB has 15 members, although previous challenges for constitutional changes-such as the 18th and 21st and 21st members have been heard by 17 members full courts.
Case story and context
The 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2024, adopted last October, brought sweeping changes to Pakistan’s legal structure. It abolished the Supreme Court’s Suo Motu powers in accordance with Article 184 (2).
The amendment also restructured the Judicial Commission for Pakistan (JCP), extended parliamentary supervision in the formation of bench and required the elimination of interest (RIBA) from the financial system by January 1, 2028.
A total of 36 petitions filed by the High Court Bar Associations, PTI, civil society representatives and former judges challenge the amendment and call it an attack on judicial independence.
They claim that it is changing control over key legal functions – appeals, nominations and bench compositions – take the exercise and disrupts the constitutional balance of power.
The petitioners also claim that the amendment was rushed through parliament without meaningful debate or proper two -thirds approval under Article 239 of the Constitution. They call on the Supreme Court to knock it down completely or at least cancel clauses that amends CJP’s appointment mechanism and JCP’s composition.
Critics claim that the removal of Suo Motu powers stripes the right of its ability to protect citizens’ fundamental rights, especially in cases where vulnerable groups cannot turn to the court directly. However, supporters claim that it prevents legal overreaction and restores democratic balance.
Previously, Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar had called on Chief Justice Yahya Afridi to convene a full court with reference to “constitutional size” of the question. CJP rejected and resonated that a full court could postpone internal legal considerations to unnecessary public control.
The petries continue to require the entire Supreme Court to hear the case and point to precedent such as the 18th and 21.
With live streaming that is now approved, all eyes are whether CB will take the next crucial step – order a full court – to ensure that the judiciary’s own restructuring is discussed by all its members in full public view.
