Islamabad, October 9, 2025: Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail on Thursday remarked that whether willingly or not, the apex court’s judges have accepted the 26th Constitutional Amendment, as an eight-member larger bench resumed hearing petitions challenging the controversial amendment passed by parliament last year.
The case, live-streamed on the Supreme Court’s official YouTube channel, was heard by a bench headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and comprising Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha A. Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhter Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Jamal Khan Mandokhail. The hearing resumed after a gap of nine months.
Multiple political parties and bar associations — including the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), and several former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) — had challenged the 26th Amendment, which redefines the process for the appointment of the chief justice, fixes the top judge’s tenure, and introduces new rules for forming constitutional benches.
During Thursday’s hearing, Munir A. Malik, representing the Balochistan High Court Bar Association (BHCA), endorsed the arguments earlier presented by Hamid Khan of the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA). He argued that a full court existed even before the amendment and that the present constitutional bench retained the judicial authority to hear the case.
Justice Ayesha Malik questioned whether a full court could be formed in light of the new constitutional changes. Malik responded that the court’s jurisdiction remained unaffected, asserting that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) could still nominate any judge to a bench.
At this point, Justice Musarrat Hilali raised the issue of jurisdiction, observing that judges elevated after the 26th Amendment “should not sit on the bench.” Justice Mandokhail responded, asking whether “the new judges were brought from another country.” Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar clarified that the newly promoted judges had nothing to do with the amendment and had previously served as chief justices of high courts. Justice Hilali later clarified that her comments carried no malicious intent.
“All judges are honourable and should not be dragged into controversy,” remarked Justice Mandokhail, recalling that both he and the Chief Justice of Pakistan had repeatedly supported the inclusion of all judges in constitutional benches during JCP meetings.
Later, Abid Zuberi, counsel representing six former SCBA presidents, argued that it was not necessary for all judges to sit on a full court bench. He maintained that available judges could meet the quorum and suggested that the Practice and Procedure Committee, constituted before the 26th Amendment, could be directed to form a full court.
After hearing the arguments, the bench adjourned proceedings until Monday next week.
