•The petitioner believes that the votes of defectors have been relied on
•Hope all courts to hear cases
Islamabad: Eight Supreme Court judges Constitutional Judges (CB) will resume in the October 7 lawsuit against the backdrop of calls for constant early hearings petition challenge 26th Constitutional Amendment.
Leaded by Justice Aminuddin Khan, the bench also includes Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha A. Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musartat Hilali, Naem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Bilal Hassan.
On August 20, Senior Puisne Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar called for a full court meeting to determine the virus of the 26th Amendment after SC decided to publicly disclose the minutes of the committee on October 31, 2024.
Two responses from the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi were uploaded to the court website on August 14, explaining why he ignored the committee’s decision. CJP had believed that such a move would undermine the high-profile cooperation among judges and make Apex Court comment to the public, noting that it is regrettable in the recent past.
Shah and Justice Akhtar observed in their joint letter: “The challenge of the 26th Amendment continues to be pending and is the earliest to decide their challenge before the entire institution – I am the entire court. It’s offensive.”
The last hearing on the challenge was the January 27 Hero, when the Constitutional Seat asked different petitioners to consider the existing eight benches as the entire court. At that hearing, Justice Mazar pointed out: “This is not the area where the CB constitutes the entire court or submits the matter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan after Article 191A of the Constitution.” He explained that it is not just a single court based on the will of the lawyer.
However, Justice Aminuddin Khan issued a notice to the respondents in the key points raised by lawyers regarding the matter to all courts, the impact of the amendment on judicial independence and the arrangements for the on-site summary of the arrangements for litigation.
The Supreme Court is currently being filed by multiple petitions by the PTI, individuals and various High Court Bar Associations urging all courts to hear the matter, rather than a constitutional judge made under the 26th Amendment.
The petition holds that the process of passing the amendment violates Articles 63A, 238 and 239 of the Constitution, pointing to an incompletely composed parliament, including the vote of defective members, other processes, other processes, other processes, other processes, and other processes and other processes and other processes and other legal functions, and gives unlimited efficiency and other laws.
The petitioner also attempted to declare unconstitutional, superwells in Sections 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 21 and 27 of the 26th Amendment, and directly conflicts with the prominent features of the Constitution and is invalid from the ground up.
They argue that under the 26th Amendment, any legislation of an individual or agency and its consequences is illegal and has no power and should be put on hold.
The petition also calls on the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) 2024 Act and the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) (Amendment) 2024 Act to be declared unconstitutional, unconstitutional from scratch, invalid and without legal effect, they come from the Arms Constitution Amendment, Statements and Representatives and Representatives and Representatives and Representatives. Try to achieve an unconstitutional design.
Posted at Dawn on September 24, 2025
