Pakistan Constitutional Amendments:

[ghazi52]

Justice Mazhar noted that the CB was at the moment not considering the main question of the legislation’s legality, but the request for a full court and sought arguments on that.

Hamid responded that he was not detailing how the 26th Amendment was unconstitutional, but on the “effects of its powers”. He said it was for the first time after the legislation that the “authority to form benches was taken away from the chief justice”.

Noting that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) existed prior to last year’s constitutional tweaks, the LHCBA counsel said the 26th Amendment impacted the JCP’s formation as “judges became a minority” after the number of its members was increased.


“After the Amendment, the majority in the Judicial Commission went to the administrative side, which affected judicial independence,” Hamid said.

Upon Justice Mandokhail asking Hamid whether he was acknowledging the 26th Amendment or not, the lawyer replied in the negative.

At this point during the hearing, Justice Mazhar wondered whether a bench constituted after the 26th Amendment could decide a plea seeking the formation of a full court.

Justice Mandokhail, however, remarked that the Amendment was part of the Constitution for now. At Justice Afghan pointing out that Hamid had not specified in his petition that “to whom should the bench send the case”, the lawyer said the matter should be referred to the CJP.

Justice Hilali also asked whether the LHCBA counsel had made any request to the authority responsible for constituting the benches. To this, Hamid replied, “We are challenging the bench formation, which was constituted under the influence of the 26th Amendment.”

Here, Justice Aminuddin observed, “Right now, [we are] not at such a stage to consider who will hear the case. Possibly, there might be hearings for a month on the matter of who will hear the case,” he added.

“On what basis are you saying that we cannot hear the case?” the CB head questioned Hamid, remarking that it was not in the judges’ control to “go back to before the 26th Amendment”.

At this point during the hearing, Justice Malik said, “Whether a full court hears or a bench, no one is stopping any judicial order. The process continues after a judicial order.

“Where under the 26th Amendment is a full court being barred?” she asked, to which Hamid replied that the legislation did not do so.

 

[ghazi52]

26th Amendment case: Order for formation of full court can be issued using judicial powers, CB told​

Umer Mehtab
October 9, 2025



This photo combo shows (clockwise from L) Justices Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan. — SC website/File

Senior lawyer Munir A. Malik contended on Thursday that an order for the formation of a full court could be issued using “judicial powers” as an eight-member Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court (SC) heard pleas against the contentious legislation.

The Amendment, which was approved by both houses of parliament in October last year, altered judicial authority and tenure, and has been a lightning rod for debate with both opposition parties and legal experts questioning its impact on the judiciary’s autonomy.

It took away the SC’s suo motu powers, set the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) term at three years and empowered a Special Parliamentary Committee for the appointment of the CJP from among the three most senior SC judges. It also paved the way for the formation of the CB, which is now hearing petitions against the very legislation that enabled its establishment.

The CB is headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and also includes Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan.


Today’s hearing — which was streamed live — began at 11:30am and was adjourned at around 1pm. Malik, the counsel for the Balochistan High Court Bar Association, presented his arguments. Former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Abid Shahid Zuberi also began his arguments and is set to continue them on October 13 (Monday).

During yesterday’s hearing, Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) lawyer Hamid Khan had requested the formation of a 16-member bench to hear the pleas, as per the number of SC judges at the time of the 26th Amendment’s passage.

Several judges, including Justice Aminuddin, observed that the 26th Amendment was currently part of the Constitution. Some judges questioned whether the CB had the power to form a full court, while Justice Malik noted there was no restriction on issuing a judicial order for that.

The bench will first determine whether the challenges should be heard by a full court comprising all available SC judges or by the same eight-judge CB, before deciding on the legality of the 26th Amendment.

The case was initially taken up in January, and after the CB’s approval of petitioners’ request for it, the proceedings are being live-streamed on the SC’s YouTube channel.

At the outset of the hearing, Malik voiced his support for the arguments presented by LHCBA counsel Hamid yesterday. At this, Justice Mandokhail asked him whether he also backed the statements about “keeping the points of the 26th Amendment aside”.

Justice Mazhar also noted that Hamid had asked the court to ignore the newly added Article 191A, under which the constitutional benches were formed in the apex court.

Malik then replied that a full court “existed before the 26th Amendment”. He contended that the CB was “formed within the Supreme Court” and requested that a bench comprising all SC judges hear the pleas.

During the hearing, judges questioned whether the CB had the power to issue orders for the constitution of a full court, while Malik contended that it could do so through a judicial order.

“Yes, absolutely. This order can be issued using judicial powers,” the BHCBA lawyer said in response to a question on the matter by Justice Mandokhail. “Everyone is obliged to follow a judicial order under Article 191A,” the counsel added.

 

[ghazi52]

Justice Mandokhail wonders whether judges can hear 26th Amendment case if they are its ‘beneficiaries’​

Dawn.com
October 13, 2025

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail on Monday wondered whether judges comprising the Supreme Court’s (SC) Constitutional Bench (CB) hearing petitions against the 26th Amendment could do so if they were its “beneficiaries”.

The Amendment was passed by the parliament during an overnight session in October last year, with the PTI claiming seven of its lawmakers were abducted to gain their favour as the party opposed the legislation. The Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M) also alleged its two senators were being pressured, with both later defying party line to vote in the tweaks’ favour.

The legislation, which altered judicial authority and tenure, has been a lightning rod for debate with both opposition parties and legal experts questioning its impact on the judiciary’s independence.

The tweaks took away the SC’s suo motu powers, set the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) term at three years and empowered a Special Parliamentary Committee for the appointment of the CJP from among the three most senior SC judges. It also paved the way for the formation of the CB, which is now hearing petitions against the very legislation that enabled its establishment.

Former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Abid Shahid Zuberi continued his arguments on the case today. The hearing has been adjourned till 11:30am tomorrow (Tuesday).

 

[ghazi52]

26th Amendment case: CJP has power to form full court, lawyer tells Constitutional Bench​

Umer Mehtab
October 14, 2025

Senior lawyer Abid Shahid Zuberi on Tuesday told the Supreme Court’s (SC) Constitutional Bench (CB) that the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) had the power to form a full court as it took up a set of petitions against the 26th Amendment.

The 26th Amendment was passed by Parliament during an overnight session in October last year, with the PTI claiming seven of its lawmakers were abducted to gain their favour as the party opposed the legislation. The Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M) also alleged its two senators were being, with both later defying party line to vote in the tweaks’ favour.

The legislation, which altered judicial authority and tenure, has been a lightning rod for debate with both opposition parties and legal experts questioning its impact on the judiciary’s independence.

The tweaks took away the SC’s suo motu powers, set the CJP’s term at three years and empowered a Special Parliamentary Committee for the appointment of the CJP from among the three most senior SC judges. It also paved the way for the formation of the CB, which is now hearing petitions against the very legislation that enabled its establishment.

The bench hearing the pleas is headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and also includes Justices Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan.

 

[ghazi52]

The live-stream for the hearing began with a delay of about 40 minutes due to internet issues. The Pakistan Telecommunications Limited (PTCL) has said users would experience degraded internet services today as a submarine cable is being repaired.

“There are internet issues today. The live stream will not be possible,” Justice Aminuddin said at the outset of the hearing. Justice Mazhar also said the livestream YouTube link was down and asked staff to check this.

Zuberi then cited various past court verdicts to support his arguments.

“A party cannot raise an objection on the judge. The judge has the authority [to decide] whether to hear a case or not,” the former SCBA president said.

“On the one hand, you are saying 16 judges and on the other, you also talk about ‘collective knowledge’,” Justice Mandokhail remarked when Zuberi sought a full court comprising pre-Amendment judges. The judge asked the lawyer to clarify what his request was.

“Do not say a full court; say ‘those judges who were present from before the Amendment’,” Justice Mandokhail said. Zuberi referred to the case upholding Practice and Procedure Act 2023 and contended that the current eight-member bench would not give the petitioners the right to appeal.

“The number of judges nominated as part of the Constitutional Bench is 15, whereas at least nine more judges are needed for hearing an appeal,” Zuberi said.

Here, Justice Ayesha observed that it was now the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s prerogative whether to give someone the right to appeal or not. She said the JCP could “give the right to appeal by nominating additional judges, [but] if it did not wish so, then the right to appeal can also be taken away”.

“This is simply a matter of the judiciary’s independence,” she remarked. Justice Mandokhail then pointed out that even a 16-member bench, as sought by Zuberi, would not have the right to appeal.

Zuberi said the SC had declared that the right to appeal was not mandatory for “decisions based on collective knowledge”.

Justice Mandokhail questioned how Article 191A, under which the constitutional benches were formed in the SC, could be ignored, as it was a part of the Constitution.

Justice Ayesha noted that there were past verdicts present on “how the challenged provisions are kept aside”, at which Justice Mandokhail said to let Zuberi answer the question.

 

[ghazi52]

ISLAMABAD: A member of the eight-judge Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Thursday wondered whether it would be pointless to hear challenges to the 26th Constitution Amendment if its members had to ignore Article 191A of the Constitution, under which the present bench was formed.

“We should recuse, resile and rise if we don’t have jurisdiction under Article 191A,” observed Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, adding that the bench must remain within the confines of the provision under which it was constituted.

The observation came when Justice Ayesha A. Malik, while supporting the formation of a full court, asked whether a constitutional amendment could be relied upon to determine its own validity.

She remarked that for the exercise of judicial power, the court did not have to depend on Article 191A to issue directives for the formation of a full court, questioning whether judicial powers could be curtailed by invoking Article 191A.

Munir A. Malik says only ‘pre-26th Amendment judges’ should sit on full bench

 

[HAIDER]

Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) spokesperson Kamran Murtaza has announced that the 27th Constitutional Amendment will be presented in Parliament on Monday.

Speaking on BOL News program “BOL Report with Batool Rajpoot”, Kamran Murtaza said that the proposed 27th Amendment aims to reshape all provisions introduced under the 26th Amendment.

He added that the amendment is part of efforts to bring constitutional clarity and alignment to the previous changes made in the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

 

[HAIDER]

More to come

 

[airhead]

Allah khair kare

 

[PakFactor]

Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) spokesperson Kamran Murtaza has announced that the 27th Constitutional Amendment will be presented in Parliament on Monday.

Speaking on BOL News program “BOL Report with Batool Rajpoot”, Kamran Murtaza said that the proposed 27th Amendment aims to reshape all provisions introduced under the 26th Amendment.

He added that the amendment is part of efforts to bring constitutional clarity and alignment to the previous changes made in the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

What's in the 27th Amendment?

 

[HAIDER]

What's in the 27th Amendment?

before financial resources transferred to province and no money left for central govt to pay the foreign loans. Now planning to revert and take away provincial financial freedom. Which was long due. But , military also wants bugger budget , rest you guess and more polices in the budgets ...Wonder why Munir , Mariam and Nawaz had 3 hours long meeting in Jati Umra.

 

[PakFactor]

before financial resources transferred to province and no money left for central govt to pay the foreign loans. Now planning to revert and take away provincial financial freedom. Which was long due. But , military also wants bugger budget , rest you guess and more polices in the budgets ...Wonder why Munir , Mariam and Nawaz had 3 hours long meeting in Jati Umra.

I see, that clears it up. Thanks!

 

[hasssanali8998]

before financial resources transferred to province and no money left for central govt to pay the foreign loans.

thats soo stupid wtf , also how do ptm type groups claim punjab is looting them lmao .

 

[Forsvaret]

What's in the 27th Amendment?

More of this obviously:

 

[hasssanali8998]

More of this obviously:

qaidi no 804 approves your message