On October 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pakistan found itself at the center of a constitutional storm as it continued to hear petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment—a law that has upended the very structure of the country’s highest judiciary. The hearing, led by an eight-member Constitutional Bench (CB) and live-streamed for the nation to witness, has become a battleground for questions about judicial independence, the legitimacy of recent reforms, and the power of Parliament to shape the courts.
The 26th Amendment, passed during a dramatic overnight parliamentary session in October 2024, introduced sweeping changes to the judiciary. According to Dawn and The News, the amendment set the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) term at three years, removed the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers, and empowered a Special Parliamentary Committee to appoint the CJP from among the three most senior Supreme Court judges. It also established special Constitutional Benches—like the one now hearing the challenge—to deal with constitutional matters. The legislation’s passage was marred by controversy, with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party alleging that seven of its lawmakers were abducted to force their support, and the Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M) claiming its senators were pressured to break party lines.
As the hearing opened, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail posed a question that cut to the heart of the matter: could judges who were beneficiaries of the very amendment under challenge fairly preside over its fate? “If we are the beneficiaries, can we then sit on the bench?” he asked, as reported by Dawn. The question echoed through the courtroom, highlighting the complexity of a case where the judges themselves may be directly impacted by its outcome. Justice Mandokhail further remarked, “The chief justice was appointed under the 26th Amendment. If the constitutional amendment had not been passed, Yahya Afridi would have become the chief justice as per seniority.”
Former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Abid Shahid Zuberi, representing several petitioners, argued forcefully for the formation of a full court to hear the case. “I do not think that any party has the right to select a bench of their choice. But here the case is that we are requesting a full court on some constitutional legal issues,” Zuberi said. He insisted that only judges appointed before the 26th Amendment should be part of the bench, contending that the legitimacy of the CB’s composition was in question since the amendment itself was under challenge.
The Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and including Justices Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan, wrestled with the thorny issue of who should decide the amendment’s fate. Justice Mazhar pressed the dilemma further: “Who would hear the case then if the amendment under which the Constitutional Bench has been formed is challenged?” Zuberi replied that a full court represented the “collective minds of everyone,” implying that the legitimacy and authority of a full bench would be beyond reproach.
Justice Ayesha Malik probed the procedural aspects, pointing out that Article 191A of the Constitution—under which the CBs were formed—“does not address the matter of a full court, but benches.” This technicality became a focal point, as Justice Mandokhail remarked that a full court could also be termed a bench, but Justice Ayesha disagreed, suggesting that the distinction was more than just semantics. Justice Afghan noted, “Whether you like it or not, Article 191A exists. The term ‘full court’ is not present in Article 191A. You are saying to send the matter of a full court to the chief justice. Under Article 191A, the chief justice does not have the authority anymore.”
The debate was not merely academic. The petitioners—including bar associations, lawyers, the PTI, and other politicians—have asked the Supreme Court to strike down the entire 26th Amendment if it is determined that the necessary two-thirds majority of each House did not freely vote in favor, as required by Article 239 of the Constitution. Alternatively, they seek to invalidate specific provisions, such as those introducing annual performance evaluations for high court judges and changing the criteria for appointing the CJP, arguing these measures undermine the judiciary’s independence—a core feature of the Constitution.
Justice Hilali raised another key concern: could the CB issue directions for a full court if its own jurisdiction was in doubt? Zuberi maintained that the CB had the authority to issue a judicial order for the formation of a full court, but Justice Hilali countered that such a move might not be within the bench’s powers if its very legitimacy was being questioned. Justice Naeem Afghan observed that Article 191A effectively made the constitutional bench the full court for such cases, suggesting that the current arrangement was in line with the new constitutional framework.
Throughout the proceedings, the judges and lawyers returned repeatedly to the issue of jurisdiction versus judicial power. Zuberi explained, “All the judges of the Supreme Court have the same judicial power. Jurisdiction is conferred under Article 175(2)—whether it is appellate, criminal, or review.” Justice Ayesha added, “Jurisdiction is not vested with a bench but in the court. Is there a bar under any of these provisions which prevents the constitution of a full court?” She noted that, in the past, full courts had been convened for cases of significant constitutional importance, such as challenges to the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023.
Meanwhile, outside the courtroom, the legal fraternity has not remained silent. On Saturday, a convention jointly hosted by the Lahore High Court Bar Association and the Lahore Bar Association resolved to continue opposing the 26th Amendment, declaring that “the legal fraternity would not accept any judicial verdict that undermines the judiciary’s independence.” The proceedings, which have been live-streamed on the Supreme Court’s YouTube channel since October 8, have attracted nationwide attention and fueled a broader debate about the future of judicial independence in Pakistan.
As the hearing adjourned until 11:30 am on October 14, 2025, the Supreme Court faces a momentous decision. The path it chooses will not only determine the fate of the 26th Amendment but may also set a precedent for the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary for years to come. The case has become a crucible for questions of legitimacy, independence, and the rule of law—issues that lie at the very core of Pakistan’s constitutional order.
With the stakes so high and the legal arguments so finely balanced, the nation waits to see not just what the court will decide, but who will be deemed fit to decide it.
