Islamabad, October 20, 2025: The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench head, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, on Monday defended the 26th Constitutional Amendment, urging critics not to term it controversial.
“Don’t say that the 26th [Constitutional] Amendment is controversial,” Justice Amin-ud-Din remarked while heading an eight-member larger bench hearing a series of petitions challenging the amendment passed by Parliament in October last year.
The bench comprises Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
Nearly three dozen petitioners — including the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), the Lahore High Court Bar Association, Lahore Bar Association, Karachi Bar Association, seven former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) presidents, and several individuals — have challenged the amendment’s legality.
During Monday’s proceedings, senior lawyer Akram Sheikh appeared in person and requested the formation of a 24-member full court to hear the case. “The court should not be further packed by adding any more judges. I leave the issue of conflict of interest to the judge,” he said, questioning the insistence on the existing eight-member bench.
Arguing that the judiciary must adhere to the principle of stare decisis (precedent), Sheikh contended that the 26th Amendment had “shattered the Constitution and one of the state’s organs — the judiciary.” He expressed hope that the court would declare the amendment “null and void.”
At this, Justice Mandokhail asked whether the lawyer believed the amendment was now part of the Constitution or should be struck down.
Justice Amin-ud-Din criticized Sheikh for not presenting a “single legal or constitutional argument,” prompting the lawyer to respond that past decisions barred the current bench from hearing the matter. When Sheikh argued that all Supreme Court judges should validate Article 191-A, Justice Amin-ud-Din advised, “If you think you want to go to the competent forum, then go to the Chief Justice.”
Explaining the bench’s composition, Justice Mandokhail noted that judges serve in dual roles — as general judges and as members of a constitutional bench. Justice Bilal Hassan questioned, “If you say we eight judges cannot hear the case because we are beneficiaries, then which judges are not affected by the 26th Amendment and should hear it?”
Responding to Justice Mazhar’s question about whether all 24 judges should hear the case, Sheikh said, “If a judge’s conscience is disturbed, he should not sit on the bench.”
Later, petitioner Shabbar Raza Rizvi argued that the practice and procedure committee could constitute a full court. “This case should be heard by the Supreme Court and not by a bench,” he asserted.
When asked whether he preferred 16 or 24 judges to hear the case, Rizvi replied, “I have no objection to 24 judges hearing it.”
The bench subsequently adjourned the hearing till 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday.
