ISLAMABAD -Supreme Court Justice Muhammad Ali, while hearing the 26th Constitutional Amendment case, asked as how a constitutional bench could constitute a full court, observing that the current situation was different from before.
A SC eight-member constitutional bench heard the petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
During the proceedings, Justice Ayesha Malik asked whether there was any legal obstacle to forming a full court.
In response, Justice Muhammad Ali asked whether the present eight-member bench had the jurisdiction to constitute a full court.
Senior lawyer Munir A. Malik replied that it made no difference whether the existing bench was a regular or constitutional one, as it had the authority to decide who would hear the case.
Justice Muhammad Ali further remarked that if the bench issued a judicial order, it might be interpreted as an administrative order, questioning whether that would violate Article 191-A of the Constitution.
In response, Munir A. Malik maintained that there would be no violation, arguing that the constitutional bench possessed judicial authority.
Justice Ayesha A. Malik then asked if the counsel wanted the constitutional bench to exercise judicial powers to form a full court, adding that the court had often relied on the Constitution instead of amendments.
Justice Muhammad Ali reiterated that since Article 191-A was in place, it must be explained how a constitutional bench could constitute a full court under the current circumstances, as “the situation now is different.”
Munir A. Malik urged the bench to direct the formation of a full court to hear the case, comprising all judges of the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the constitutional bench already exists within the apex court.
SC issues notices to parties on pleas against 26th Constitutional Amendment
