ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday resumed the live-streamed hearing of multiple petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment, with an eight-member constitutional bench questioning whether it had the authority to form a full court to take up the case.
The bench is headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and includes Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Ayesha Malik, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and others. The proceedings were broadcast live on the Supreme Court’s official YouTube channel.
At the outset, lawyer Munir A. Malik, appearing via video link, said he had filed an application regarding live streaming but could not be heard clearly earlier. Justice Aminuddin observed that the issue had already been settled and was now “ineffective.” Malik said he endorsed senior counsel Hamid Khan’s earlier arguments and would add further points.
Justice Mandokhail asked whether Malik also adopted the rest of Hamid Khan’s arguments, noting that Hamid Khan had suggested setting aside the provisions of the 26th Amendment. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired whether the existing bench was bound to form a full court or if it was merely a request from the petitioner.
Malik responded that he had requested directions from the current bench for the formation of a full court comprising all Supreme Court judges to hear the petitions. Justice Ayesha Malik asked whether any legal obstacle prevented the formation of a full court, while Justice Mazhar questioned whether the eight-member bench had the jurisdiction to do so.
26th Amendment case: Supreme Court approves live streaming of proceedings
Justice Mazhar also asked whether issuing such an order would violate Article 191A of the Constitution. Malik replied that there would be “no violation,” asserting that the constitutional bench retained full judicial powers to form a larger bench. Justice Ayesha Malik pressed further, asking if the bench could use its judicial authority to order a full court.
Justice Mandokhail observed that under the Constitution, a judicial commission comprising senior judges could nominate any judge to a bench and that the commission had the authority to form benches as it deemed fit. Justice Aminuddin added that determining jurisdiction itself fell within the merits of the case.
The bench deliberated on whether Article 191A limited the court’s powers and if a full court could still be constituted under an ongoing constitutional amendment. “If we ignore Article 191A, why are we even sitting here?,” ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday resumed the live-streamed hearing of multiple petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment, with an eight-member constitutional bench questioning whether it had the authority to form a full court to take up the case.
The bench is headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and includes Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Ayesha Malik, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and others. The proceedings were broadcast live on the Supreme Court’s official YouTube channel.
Four SC judges ask CJP to postpone judges’ appointment till adjudication of 26th amendment case
At the outset, lawyer Munir A. Malik, appearing via video link, said he had filed an application regarding live streaming but could not be heard clearly earlier. Justice Aminuddin observed that the issue had already been settled and was now “ineffective.” Malik said he endorsed senior counsel Hamid Khan’s earlier arguments and would add further points.
Justice Mandokhail asked whether Malik also adopted the rest of Hamid Khan’s arguments, noting that Hamid Khan had suggested setting aside the provisions of the 26th Amendment. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired whether the existing bench was bound to form a full court or if it was merely a request from the petitioner.
Malik responded that he had requested directions from the current bench for the formation of a full court comprising all Supreme Court judges to hear the petitions. Justice Ayesha Malik asked whether any legal obstacle prevented the formation of a full court, while Justice Mazhar questioned whether the eight-member bench had the jurisdiction to do so.
Justice Mazhar also asked whether issuing such an order would violate Article 191A of the Constitution. Malik replied that there would be “no violation,” asserting that the constitutional bench retained full judicial powers to form a larger bench. Justice Ayesha Malik pressed further, asking if the bench could use its judicial authority to order a full court.
Justice Mandokhail observed that under the Constitution, a judicial commission comprising senior judges could nominate any judge to a bench and that the commission had the authority to form benches as it deemed fit. Justice Aminuddin added that determining jurisdiction itself fell within the merits of the case.
The bench deliberated on whether Article 191A limited the court’s powers and if a full court could still be constituted under an ongoing constitutional amendment. “If we ignore Article 191A, why are we even sitting here?”, Justice Mazhar questioned.