On Tuesday, October 7, 2025, Pakistan’s Supreme Court took a historic step by approving the live streaming of proceedings in the high-profile case challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The decision, announced by an eight-member constitutional bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, means that for the first time, the nation will be able to watch arguments unfold in real time on the Supreme Court’s official YouTube channel. The move marks a significant moment for judicial transparency, but it comes amid heated debate over the amendment’s sweeping changes to the judiciary’s powers and independence.
The 26th Amendment, passed by both houses of parliament in October 2024, has been a lightning rod for controversy. According to reporting from Dawn, the amendment removed the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers, set the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) term at three years, and gave the prime minister the authority to appoint the next CJP from among the three most senior judges. It also established the very constitutional bench now hearing petitions against it. The amendment’s passage was swift, and critics—including various high court bar associations, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), and other legal experts—have since questioned its legitimacy and its impact on the separation of powers.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the bench—composed of Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan—tackled three main issues: whether a full court should hear the pleas against the amendment, objections to the current bench’s composition, and whether the proceedings themselves should be live streamed. Justice Aminuddin Khan made it clear that the court would first hear arguments on requests for a full court hearing and objections to the constitutional bench before deciding on live streaming. "We will decide on the matter of live streaming (of court proceedings) later," he remarked, according to Dawn.
But the push for transparency was strong. Lawyer Khawaja Ahmad Hassan argued that arguments on pleas seeking a full court hearing should be live streamed so the public could understand the reasons behind such requests. He pressed the court to prioritize the matter of live streaming. Meanwhile, Shahid Jameel, counsel for Tehreek-i-Tahaffuz Ayeen-i-Pakistan Vice Chairperson Mustafa Khokhar, informed the court that the Supreme Court registrar had raised objections over his client’s plea for a full court hearing. "We filed an appeal against the objections," Jameel stated, urging the court to address Khokhar’s appeal first.
The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government, through its lawyer, also supported the idea of a full court hearing, clarifying that while they had no objection to the current bench members, they believed the gravity of the case warranted the participation of the entire Supreme Court. Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed, representing another petitioner, argued that every citizen had a right to information and transparency. He pointed out that the draft of the 26th Amendment had not been made public and that there was no public debate prior to its passage. "The Amendment was passed in the darkness of the night. That is why facts must be revealed to the public," Ahmed argued, referencing previous instances where court proceedings were live streamed, such as in the Zulfikar Bhutto case.
The bench, after hearing these arguments, reserved its decision on the requests for live streaming. During the deliberations, Justice Ayesha Malik asked Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman about the government’s stance on live streaming. Rehman responded that the matter was administrative, prompting Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar to clarify, "So you will agree with whatever the bench decides?" The government’s position, it seemed, was to defer to the court’s judgment on the issue.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail, reflecting on the broader implications of live streaming, noted, "Our intention behind live streaming was to educate people, but instead, it exposed us." He added, "This is a big case, we will proceed on this in an orderly manner." The court ultimately approved the requests for live streaming, a move that many see as a win for openness, even as it exposes the court to greater public scrutiny.
The petitions before the court are far-reaching. According to Aaj News, petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to strike down the entire 26th Amendment on grounds of procedural impropriety, arguing that the requisite two-thirds of the lawfully elected members of each house did not freely exercise their right to vote as required under Article 239 of the Constitution. In the alternative, they have asked the court to invalidate specific provisions they say undermine the judiciary’s independence—most notably those relating to annual performance evaluations of high court judges, the appointment of the Chief Justice, and the formation of constitutional benches. The petitioners have also challenged the constitutionality of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2024 and the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) (Amendment) Act 2024, arguing that they stem from an unconstitutional amendment and are therefore void.
Underlying these legal challenges is a broader debate about the independence of Pakistan’s judiciary. The petitioners contend that the new procedures for appointing the Chief Justice and evaluating judges represent an attempt by the executive branch to encroach on judicial autonomy—a concern echoed by legal experts and opposition parties alike. They have requested that the court declare the original Article 175A(3), which previously governed the appointment of the Chief Justice, to still be in effect and to direct the government to notify the senior-most judge as CJP accordingly.
The question of whether the full Supreme Court—or just the eight-member constitutional bench—should hear the case has loomed large. Between January and October 2025, multiple calls for a full court hearing were made. On August 14, Chief Justice Yahya Afridi explained his decision not to convene a full court, citing concerns about undermining collegiality among judges and exposing the court to public comment. In a joint letter on August 20, Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar lamented what they called a “golden opportunity” lost to address the challenges to the 26th Amendment before the entire institution.
As the hearing adjourned until 11:30 am on Wednesday, October 8, 2025, the nation’s eyes turned to the Supreme Court’s YouTube channel, awaiting a rare window into the inner workings of Pakistan’s highest court. The outcome of this case could have profound implications for the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive, and for the future of constitutional amendments in the country. For now, the live streaming of proceedings offers the public a front-row seat to a pivotal chapter in Pakistan’s legal and political history.
With the court poised to continue its deliberations, the debate over judicial independence, transparency, and the limits of executive power is set to play out not just in the courtroom, but in homes and offices across the country—live and unfiltered.
