Courts can’t be shut out even if powers cut, SC judge says
“Justice Mandokhail says SC and high courts cannot be blocked from hearing cases.”
Key points
- Justice Mandokhail says SC and high courts cannot be blocked from hearing cases.
- Counsel argues the 26th Amendment doesn’t bar forming a full court.
- Bench weighs its power to direct a full court if needed.
- Justice Mazhar notes orders will follow if a basic-structure breach is proven.
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench resumed hearings on petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment, with Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail observing that neither the Supreme Court nor the high courts can be prevented from hearing cases even if their powers are curtailed. During proceedings, counsel Khawaja Ahmed — appearing in a case linked to former chief justice Jawwad S Khawaja — argued that nothing in the amendment bars the formation of a full court. He contended that the court retains authority to constitute such a bench where warranted. Members of the bench, led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and also comprising Justices Ayesha A Malik, Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan, questioned the scope of their powers, including whether they could direct that a full court be formed. Justice Ayesha raised whether, if a full court is required, the bench must specify which configuration qualifies as one. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that if it is demonstrated the amendment violates the Constitution’s basic structure, the court would pass an appropriate order. He added that no judge has refused to hear the case on its merits. The bench noted lawyers have differed on whether the amendment itself should be set aside for argument’s sake. Khawaja Ahmed maintained the court’s authority to hear the case persists regardless of any subsequent amendment, underscoring that even if further changes purported to shift Supreme Court matters to the executive, the judiciary would still have to adjudicate the challenge. He suggested the bench could issue a judicial order or direct the relevant executive authority where necessary. The court adjourned further arguments to Thursday, when another petitioner’s counsel is scheduled to address the bench. A broad coalition of political parties, bar associations and individuals has petitioned the court, urging scrutiny of the amendment’s passage and its conformity with constitutional fundamentals.
Corrections & clarifications
Spot an inaccuracy or need more detail? Email connect@newsnexus24.com. Significant updates are timestamped above.
