SC bench continues hearing of 26th Amendment case

Khawaja Hussain Ahmad, a lawyer, on Wednesday said that an independent bench should hear the challenges to the 26th Amendment, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.

During the hearing of 36 petitions filed against the 26th Amendment by Supreme Court constitutional bench, Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked him whether he did not trust the bench presently hearing the petitions.

An eight-member constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court (SC), headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the case.

The lawyer replied he did not mean to say that the bench was not independent.

Justice Mandokhel asked him whether he and other judges on the bench would be part of that ‘independent’ bench.

Justice Aminuddin Khan asked whether the chief justice would also be part of the bench. “Definitely, the chief justice would be included in the bench,” the lawyer replied.

Justice Mandokhel then asked when the bench could not hear the case, how it could give a ruling.

Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan said he wanted to know whether the bench had the power to hear the case.

Khawaja Hussain replied that the bench had the power to order the formation of a full court. “You hands are not tied. You, therefore, can give order for a full court. My plea is also that the full court, which was prior to the passage of the 26th Amendment, should hear the case,” the lawyer added.

Addressing Khawaja, Justice Mandokhel remarked that he meant to say that the bench could refer the case to a full court, but cannot form a regular bench.

The lawyer replied in affirmative, and said, “You cannot send the case to a regular bench, but to a full court.”

Khawaja Hussain clarified he was not seeking the annulment of the 26th Amendment, but referring the matter to a full court.

Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked that now the constitutional bench had been formed after the passage of the 26th Amendment. “Do you want us to first suspend the amendment? After all, how can we bypass Article 191-A?” she questioned.

Shabbar Raza Rizvi, the lawyer, replied that the article would have to be read in conjunction with other articles of the constitution. “It cannot be read in isolation,” he added.

Addressing Rizvi, Justice Mandokhel remarked that if his argument that the apex court and the CB were separate was accepted, then powers had been taken away from the SC, not from the bench. “Your argument is welcome. Because if we buy your argument, then the bench’s powers have been enhanced.”

The lawyer replied that although the new bench had been given some powers, but the apex court had not been deprived of its powers.

Later, the case’s hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.

Reporter: Hashir Warraich