ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench Head, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, defended the 26th Constitutional Amendment during Monday’s hearing, dismissing claims that it is controversial. He made the remarks while leading an eight-member bench hearing dozens of petitions challenging the amendment passed by parliament in October last year.
The bench includes Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
Hearing Adjourned
The court adjourned the hearing until 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday.
Dozens of Petitioners Challenge Amendment’s Validity
Around three dozen petitioners, including PTI, Jamaat-e-Islami, Sunni Ittehad Council, bar associations, and several individuals, have contested the amendment’s legality.
Senior lawyer Akram Sheikh appeared before the court in his personal capacity, urging the formation of a 24-member full court. He questioned why the current eight-judge bench was hearing the case and said the “court should not be packed further.”
Sheikh argued that the 26th Amendment had “shattered the Constitution and one of the state’s organs,” expressing hope that judges would declare it null and void.
Judges Question Lawyer’s Legal Basis
Justice Mandokhail asked whether the lawyer believed the 26th Amendment should be removed from the Constitution. Justice Amin-ud-Din, however, noted that Sheikh had not presented any concrete legal or constitutional argument.
When Sheikh said the entire Supreme Court should validate Article 191-A, Justice Amin-ud-Din replied, “If you want to go to the competent forum, then go to the chief justice.”
Justice Mandokhail explained that judges have dual roles — as general judges and as members of the constitutional bench. Justice Bilal Hassan asked which judges could hear the case if all eight were considered “beneficiaries.”
Debate Over Full-Court Hearing
Justice Mazhar questioned whether all 24 judges of the Supreme Court should hear the matter. Sheikh responded that any judge who feels conflicted should step aside.
Petitioner Shabbar Raza Rizvi later argued that the case should be heard by the full Supreme Court, not just a bench, and said he had no objection to 24 judges hearing it.
About The Truth International: The Truth International (TTI), headquartered in Islamabad, is a dynamic private organization engaged in research, analysis, and media production. TTI undertakes diverse research projects and operates a comprehensive media network that includes a fortnightly magazine, an interactive news website, an informative YouTube channel, and active social media pages across all major platforms.
Stay informed, stay engaged — stay connected with The Truth International.
