SC constitutional bench likely to hear pleas against amendment in a week’s time

Published January 21, 2025
This photo combo shows the seven judges who comprise the constitutional bench in the Supreme Court. — SC website
This photo combo shows the seven judges who comprise the constitutional bench in the Supreme Court. — SC website

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court constitutional bench is likely to take up on Jan 27 a set of challenges to 26th Amendment as well as seeking an inquiry through a judicial commission to determine if required votes in favour of the package were voluntarily or any coercion or other unlawful inducement were at play.

Headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, a seven-judge constitutional bench is expected to commence the hearing on Jan 27 in which the petitioners — high court bar associations as well as individuals — had also requested the SC for a full court hearing instead of a hearing by the constitutional bench, which was established under 26th Amendment.

The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the constitutional benches, arguing that the SC should declare invalid all amendments for which votes of such members, whose election disputes were pending, were necessary to achieve the prescribed numerical threshold in Article 239.

They requested the apex court to strike down the entire 26th Amendment on the grounds of procedural impropriety if determined that the requisite two thirds of the lawfully elected membership of each House did not freely exercise their right to vote in favour of the same as required under Article 239.

SC urged to ascertain legal status of certain changes to Constitution

In the alternative, the petitioners pleaded, the court should strike down certain provisions of the 26th Amendment since they substantively undermine the independence of the judiciary which is a salient feature of the Constitution: namely the provisions for annual performance evaluation of judges of the high court by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan being inserted in Article 175A(1) and Articles 175A(18) to (20); the provisions relating to the appointment of the chief justice of Pakistan being the substitution to Article 175A(3) and the provisions for constitutional benches of the apex court and high courts.

As a consequence, the court should declare that the original Article 175A(3) holds the field and direct the federal government to notify SC’s senior most judge as CJP in accordance with the original Article 175A(3).

Published in Dawn, January 21st, 2025

Opinion

Editorial

More than words
Updated 04 Apr, 2025

More than words

Holistic development can only work when there is organic and credible political activity in the province.
Poor publicity
04 Apr, 2025

Poor publicity

FORTUNE does not seem to be favouring the PTI — at least not yet. With the party’s founder confined from public...
Party pooper
04 Apr, 2025

Party pooper

INDIA’s role of a spoilsport is tiresome. From pulling books from shelves, such as Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus: ...
Canal unrest
Updated 03 Apr, 2025

Canal unrest

With rising water scarcity in Indus system, it is crucial to move towards a consensus-driven policymaking process.
Iran-US tension
03 Apr, 2025

Iran-US tension

THE Trump administration’s threats aimed at Iran do not bode well for global peace, and unless Washington changes...
Flights to history
03 Apr, 2025

Flights to history

MOHENJODARO could have been the forgotten gold we desperately need. Instead, this 5,000-year-old well of antiquity ...