Mengal, Dawar, others challenge 26th Amendment in SC, seek probe into ‘coerced’ votes

Published
0

Several renowned former parliamentarians, as well as a former president of the Sindh High Court Bar Association, challenged the 26th Amendment in the Supreme Court on Friday in two separate but similar petitions, arguing that “a vote cast under coercion is no vote at all.”

Month-long political negotiations concluded on October 20 as the 26th Constitutional Amendment Bill, also known as the Constitutional Package, became law following approval from both houses of parliament.

The newly enacted amendment has brought numerous changes to the judiciary — including taking away the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers and empowering parliamentarians to nominate the next chief justice of Pakistan from among the three most senior SC judges.

One of the petitions on Friday was jointly filed by Akhtar Mengal, president of Balochistan National Party—Mengal (BNP-M) and former chief minister of Balochistan; former speaker of the National Assembly Fahmida Mirza; former MNA Mohsin Dawar, who is also chairman of the National Democratic Movement (NDM); and Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, a former senator and advisor to the prime minister on human rights.

The other petition was filed by Salauddin Ahmed, a lawyer and former president of the Sindh High Court Bar Association.

Both petitions assailed the 26th Constitutional Amendment on two counts — notably the manner in which it was passed, and that “certain provisions of the said Act fundamentally undermine essential features of the Constitution relating to [the] independence of the judiciary and trichotomy of powers.”

Both petitions requested the top court to declare that the amendment was passed in a manner “contrary to the Constitution and law … and has no legal effect.”

They also requested that an independent inquiry be directed for “the manner in which votes were coerced and procured in Parliament.

Ahmed’s petition requested that the court “set aside the proceedings, acts and decisions and directions of the so-called Judicial Commission meeting” held on November 5.

It further requested to strike down the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) (Amendment) Act 2024 and the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) (Amendment) Act 2024 as being a “colourable exercise of legislative power and being violative of the independence of the judiciary”.

The two pieces of legislation were among six bills passed on Monday in both the National Assembly and Senate. One of the bills sought to increase the number of Supreme Court judges, and another sought extension of the terms of armed services chiefs.

Opinion

Editorial

Candid admission
Updated 30 Oct, 2026

Candid admission

Both ruling and opposition parties have lost credibility and political ground due to their ongoing vendetta.
Disrupted LPG supply
30 Oct, 2026

Disrupted LPG supply

THE petroleum minister’s explanation in the National Assembly that the recent closure of the Iran border has...
Judicial disaffection
30 Oct, 2026

Judicial disaffection

THE resignation of Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani from the Lahore High Court is another indicator of the deepening...
Restructuring plans
Updated 29 Oct, 2026

Restructuring plans

The primary reason for governance failure in Pakistan is not the geographical size of the existing provinces but the reluctance of provincial capitals to empower local bodies.
Polluted priorities
Updated 29 Oct, 2026

Polluted priorities

Enforcement must continue, but decisions should follow evidence, not the visibility of machinery on city roads.
Continuing genocide
29 Oct, 2026

Continuing genocide

FOR the people of Gaza, despite the ‘ceasefire’ reached last October, the genocide never really ceased. This ...