ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court has issued notices to the parties on the petitions against the 26th constitutional amendment.
An eight-member constitution bench led by Justice Amin Uddin Khan heard the petitions filed against the 26th constitutional amendment.
Bench comprises on Justice Jamal Mandukhel, Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, and Justice Ayesha Malik. Besides, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal are also included in the composition of this bench.
The court also issued notices on the request to constitute a full court and broadcast the court proceedings live.
At the start of the hearing, lawyer Hamid Khan and Faisal Siddiqui came to the rostrum, the petitioners pleaded for a full court bench against the constitutional amendment and the lawyers took the position that a full court bench should be formed against the 26th amendment.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel, talking to the lawyers, said that, full court cannot be formed as per your wishes, the judicial commission nominates the judges in the constitutional bench, the judges nominated by the judicial commission for the constitutional bench are all in this bench.
Judges are nominated by the Judicial Commission while the cases are decided by a three member committee, the head of the committee is Justice Amin Uddin, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and I are included in the committee.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar spoke to the lawyer that you are a confusion on the case of full court, you consider this bench as a full court.
Lawyers argued that, full court should be formed on all the judges present in the Supreme Court.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that this is not possible and the constitutional case will be heard only by the constitutional bench. A full court has been made on all the judges.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said, case of full court could only go to the Chief Justice.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said, it seems that you are in the mood to fight since day one, on which lawyer Faisal Siddiqui said that we should not fight anyone.
Justice Amin Uddin said, that if any party is not ready to give arguments, the court will issue an order.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel said, that I do not understand why you are hesitant. Whoever does not want to argue in front of this bench should sit back.
Justice Ayesha Malik remarked, there is no ban on forming a full court, on which lawyer Faisal Siddiqui said that the 26th amendment is against the principle of separation of powers.
Advocate Aziz Bhandari said, at the time of approval of the 26th amendment it was incomplete.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked the lawyer whether the total voting was held on the members for the 26th Amendment or the available members? To which lawyer Faisal Siddiqui said that the available members have been voted.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel inquired that the tip of the available members meets the full house of the House? To which Faisal Siddiqui replied that he had completed the count. We are not raising his problem.
Justice Aisha Malik asked if all the provinces were represented in the House. To which Faisal Siddiqui replied that the representation of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was not complete, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa had a Senate election.
Lawyer Salah Uddin said, Akhtar Mengal’s request has been drawn to amending the situation, how free the members were to vote, should be taken into account.
Justice Ayesha Malik said, decision of the specific seats was not implemented, on which lawyer Salah Uddin said that a point was also raised in the petition.
Lawyer Shahid Jameel said, only the real representatives of the people have the authority to amend the constitution.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said, you want to wait for the decisions of the election cases, then hear the constitutional amendment case? In this way, the constitutional amendment case will remain pending for a long time.
Later, the court issued notices to the parties on the petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
Supreme Court also issued a notice on the request to constitute a full court and broadcast the proceedings live and adjourned further hearing of the case for 3 weeks.
