ISLAMABAD: An eight-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Tuesday approved a petition seeking live streaming of proceedings in the case challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The hearings will now be broadcast live.
Passed by both houses of Parliament in October 2025, the 26th Amendment relates to changes in judicial powers and tenure, sparking intense debate over the independence of the judiciary.
The amendment abolished the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers, fixed the chief justice of Pakistan’s tenure at three years, and authorised the prime minister to nominate one of the three senior-most judges as chief justice. It also paved the way for the formation of the current constitutional bench that is now hearing petitions against the very amendment.
The amendment has been challenged by several high court bar associations, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), and other petitioners.
The eight-member bench also includes Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan. The hearing resumed on Tuesday after last being held on January 27.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, three key issues were discussed: the demand for a full court to hear the petitions, objections to the current bench, and the request for live broadcasting of the hearings.
At the outset, Justice Aminuddin Khan said the court would first hear arguments on the formation of a full court and objections to the bench, while the matter of live streaming would be decided later.
Lawyer Khawaja Ahmad Hasan argued that the debate on forming a full court should be made public and therefore the proceedings should be broadcast live. However, Justice Aminuddin remarked that the composition of a bench is an internal matter of the court, not a public one.
Advocate Shahid Jameel, representing Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, Vice Chairman of the Tehreek Tahafuz-e-Aain Pakistan, informed the court that the Registrar’s Office had raised objections to their petition, which he had appealed. The court later allotted a case number to Khokhar’s petition.
Four SC judges ask CJP to postpone judges’ appointment till adjudication of 26th amendment case
The counsel for the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government also requested a full court but clarified that they had no objection to the current bench members.
Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed argued that the public has a right to access information, but the draft of the 26th Amendment was never made public nor discussed openly.
“At the very least, the court proceedings should be broadcast live,” he said, adding that the amendment was passed “under the cover of darkness,” and now the facts must be presented before the people.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that “our tragedy is that we misuse everything. We wanted to use live streaming to educate people, but instead, it exposed us.”
Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman was then asked by Justice Ayesha Malik about the government’s stance on live streaming — whether it supported it or not.
Rehman replied that live streaming was an administrative matter. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar responded, “So you agree with whatever the bench decides?”
Later, the eight-member bench approved the request for live streaming and adjourned the hearing until 11:30 am on Wednesday, October 8.
The petitioners have requested the apex court to declare the entire amendment void if it is proven that the required two-thirds majority in Parliament did not vote freely in its favour.
They argue that certain provisions undermine the judiciary’s independence, particularly those related to the appointment of the Chief Justice, judicial performance reviews, and the formation of constitutional benches.
The petitioners have also sought to declare the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2024 and the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act 2024 unconstitutional, contending that they stem from an unlawful constitutional amendment.
They further requested that this crucial case not be heard by the eight-member bench constituted under the same amendment but instead by a full court.
Ultimately, the court reserved its decision on the live-streaming petitions but later allowed live broadcasting and adjourned further proceedings until 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 8.