The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench has authorized the live broadcast of proceedings in the reserved seats case, directing its IT department to arrange the necessary technical setup.
This decision came as part of a short order issued in response to multiple petitions filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). The court also dismissed several related objections, including challenges to the bench’s composition and a plea to prioritize the hearing of the 26th Constitutional Amendment case over the reserved seats matter.
The court clarified that the proceedings on the reserved seats case would continue as scheduled and adjourned the session until Monday. A comprehensive judgment will follow, while the short order was announced in court.
Details of Today’s Proceedings
The hearing was conducted by a larger bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, focusing on review petitions related to the reserved seats ruling. Senior lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing women impacted by the Supreme Court’s July 12 verdict, concluded his arguments on SIC’s objections.
He argued that Article 191-A and the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act take precedence over the 1980 Rules concerning the formation of benches. In response to Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail’s query, Makhdoom emphasized that the 1980 Rules contradict the recent constitutional changes, particularly regarding the jurisdiction of review hearings.
Makhdoom stated that under the new constitutional framework, the Constitutional Bench must handle cases involving constitutional interpretation, unlike the previous system where the original bench would hear review petitions. He also asserted that the current bench should comprise 13 judges instead of 11, which would require a majority of at least seven for a valid ruling.
He further noted that a petition had already been submitted requesting the live broadcast of the proceedings and that SIC had no objection if the court approved it.
Makhdoom opposed calls to delay the case until the 26th Amendment verdict is issued, stressing that the court alone holds the authority to schedule hearings. Granting such adjournment, he warned, could set a precedent that would allow other petitioners to delay hearings based on their preferences.
SIC Lawyer’s Interruption and Apology
As the session concluded, SIC lawyer Faisal Siddiqi abruptly questioned whether the 26th Amendment nullified the right to a rebuttal. Justice Aminuddin calmly replied that his concerns had been heard and encouraged him to present further arguments in writing.
Siddiqi persisted, leading the judge to caution him against misrepresenting the court’s stance. Makhdoom commented that the SIC lacked legal standing, prompting an angry response from Siddiqi questioning why the Council had then been included in the case. Justice Mandokhail intervened, advising Siddiqi not to directly address senior counsel. Siddiqi subsequently apologized and requested ten minutes to present his arguments, warning that ignoring his points could lead to complications.
Attorney General Mansoor Awan observed the exchange quietly, while Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted the risk of prolonged litigation if judges kept recusing themselves.
Later, SIC’s second lawyer, Hamid Khan, emphasized the importance of continuing the live broadcast to maintain public confidence and transparency, as had occurred during the initial hearing.
After a 40-minute recess, the bench returned with its brief order. Justice Mandokhail addressed Siddiqi’s conduct, prompting another apology from the lawyer.
