Pakistan lawyer urges full Supreme Court bench to hear key amendment case

A senior Pakistani lawyer urged the Supreme Court on Monday to convene its full bench to hear challenges to the country’s 26th constitutional amendment - a law that has sparked fierce debate over judicial independence and parliamentary authority.

Appearing before an eight-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, senior lawyer and petitioner Akram Sheikh said that a full court hearing - involving all 24 sitting justices - was necessary “to end the controversy once and for all.”

“I want all the judges to sit. If any judge has a matter of conscience, they can decide for themselves,” Sheikh told the court. “My only aim is to end the controversy. As a petitioner and a Pakistani, my wish is that no shadow is cast on this court.”

Passed by parliament and signed into law on October 21, 2024, the 26th Amendment created a new mechanism for selecting the Chief Justice through a parliamentary committee and introduced a fixed three-year term for the office. The move has drawn strong criticism from opposition parties and legal circles, who argue it compromises the judiciary’s independence.

Since its enactment, the amendment has faced multiple legal challenges in the Supreme Court and provincial high courts. Political parties, bar associations, and civil society groups — including the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) - have petitioned to annul key provisions, arguing that they violate the Constitution’s basic structure.

The Supreme Court began hearing the challenges in late 2024, with the latest round of proceedings resuming in January 2025.

The hearing

Today's hearing saw Sheikh pressing for a larger bench, calling the amendment “a contentious change” that, in his words, “no dictator ever inflicted on the Constitution.”

The eight-judge bench includes Justices Jamal Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Afghan, and Shahid Bilal.

Sheikh’s insistence on a full court prompted probing questions from the bench about the practicality and legality of such a move. “What bench, in your view, can do this work?” Justice Shahid Bilal asked, while Justice Jamal Mandokhail cautioned that “a smaller bench cannot declare the decision of a larger bench void.”

As exchanges grew brisk, Sheikh requested more time to conclude his arguments, telling the judges, “I want this decided before your retirement,” in a pointed remark to Justice Aminuddin Khan. He questioned whether parliament could override the Constitution’s fundamental structure, asking, “Can parliament eliminate one organ of the state? Can it act against the basic structure of the Constitution?”

Another counsel, Shabbir Raza Rizvi, echoed Sheikh’s demand, citing Articles 176 and 191A of the Constitution. “This is a matter of judicial independence,” he said, arguing that Article 191A must be read together with Article 176 to ensure that the case is heard by the full court.

The petitions have drawn widespread public and institutional attention, with earlier hearings featuring arguments from prominent lawyers including Abid Zuberi, representing six former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Before adjourning, the bench directed all parties to clarify the legal basis and mechanism for convening a full court, noting that it must first determine whether the existing bench is competent to hear the petitions.

The hearing will continue on Tuesday.