ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) on Friday requested the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench (CB) to decide challenges to the 26th Amendment before deciding the review petitions against the July 2024 majority decision in the reserved seats case.

Moved through senior counsel Hamid Khan, the application has requested the court to postpone the next hearing of the review petitions, scheduled to be resumed by the 11-judge constitutional bench on May 19, until the apex court determined challenges to the 26th Amendment.

The apex court was requested to fix, hear and decide the petitions against the 26th Amendment, which were admitted for hearing on Jan 27, before the review petitions in the reserved case.

The application, which was filed under Order 36 Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, argued that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), which constituted the constitutional bench, was virtually under the executive’s control.

SIC asks bench to postpone May 19 hearing of reserved seats review petitions

“It is apparent from the formation of the constitutional benches for last several months that the senior most judges of the Supreme Court have not been included in CB, thus the independence of the judiciary stands compromised,” the SIC said.

The party reminded the court that the question of right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution had been specifically raised in the challenges to the 26th Amendment.

At the same time, the SIC also regretted that the review petitions filed against the July 2024 judgement remained pending contrary to the normal practice of the Supreme Court to fix the matter within three months of the judgement. There was a strong apprehension that the delay was deliberate on part of the then Chief Justice of Pakistan (Qazi Faez Isa) who perhaps was allegedly waiting for the 26th Amendment to the Cons­titution, the party alleged.

The SIC further stated that underneath the constitutional mantle tailored with the fabric of 26th Amendment, there was an authoritarian regime hell-bent to destroy the judiciary’s independence, for its political objectives.

The review petitions were transferred to the constitutional bench under Article 191A(5), inserted through the controversial 26th Amend­ment, which was in conflict with Article 10A (fair trial) of the Constitution and thus void, the party claimed.

The SIC regretted that the only parallel in the constitutional history of the subcontinent of such a blatant manipulation of the judicial system through an amendment is to be found in the form of 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution, under which an unelected prime minister, Indira Gandhi, having lost the elections clung to power through bogus amendment. However, the Supreme Court of India rose to the occasion and struck it down in the 1980 Minerva Mills case, it added.

The application pleaded that Article 191A(5), under which the difference between an appeal and a review plea has diminished, and also the jurisdiction of the bench to undo its July 2024 ruling in the reserved seats has been taken away was patently against the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.

The SIC alleged that Article 191A was a “fraud upon the electorate” since the provisions was added specifically to undo judgements given by the SC to the dislike of the government that cobbled a majority to pass the 26th Amend­ment to perpetuate their rule without a mandate of the electorate.

The application pleaded that since the 26th Amendment was passed by parliament that “lacked legitimacy and moral authority”, there was a patent conflict between the provisions of Articles 188 and 191A(5) of the Constitution.

Published in Dawn, May 17th, 2025