October 7, 2025
By Rana Malhi
ISLAMABAD
An eight-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Tuesday, heard petitions filed against the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
The bench included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal.
The court had already issued notices to the parties, while the first hearing of these petitions was held on January 27, 2025. During the previous hearing, requests were made for the formation of a full court and for the proceedings to be broadcast live, upon which the court had issued notices.
At the start of the hearing, Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar’s counsel, Shahid Jameel, came to the rostrum and stated that objections had been raised on his application regarding the formation of a full court, against which a chamber appeal had been filed. He requested that the chamber appeal be decided first. After consultation, the bench directed that the appeal be numbered for hearing.
Later, former Chief Justice (r) Jawad S. Khawaja’s counsel, Khawaja Ahmad Hussain, came to the rostrum and said that the decision to broadcast the hearing live should be made first. At this point, Justice Aminuddin remarked that the bench formation issue should be addressed first to determine whether a full court will be constituted or this bench will continue the hearing.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail observed that once the request for a full court is decided, the bench that hears the case will determine whether the proceedings should be broadcast live or not. The counsel argued that this was a matter of public importance, so live streaming should be allowed so people can directly see the arguments and judicial remarks regarding the formation of the full court. Justice Aminuddin remarked that this decision is not for the public to make but for the bench itself.
During the proceedings, Justice Aminuddin said, “Let’s not have a situation where a five-minute discussion here turns into a 20-minute debate outside.” The court reserved its decision on live streaming.
At this stage, Khyber Pukhtunkhwa’s counsel, Barrister Salahuddin, presented his arguments, saying he had no personal objection to any member of the bench but believed that the case should be heard by a full court. He said that the 26th Constitutional Amendment was a matter of public importance, yet its draft was neither made public nor debated openly.
He added that since the amendment was passed “under the cover of night,” at the very least, the court proceedings should be broadcast live so that the facts are brought before the public. Barrister Salahuddin recalled that past cases such as the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto case, the Practice and Procedure case, the Monal Restaurant case, the Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui case, the F-9 Park tree-cutting case, the Bat election symbol case, and the Reserved Seats case were all broadcast live.
Justice Naeem Afghan remarked that “you want the hearing to take place in daylight along with live streaming.” The lawyer replied that since the amendment was passed “in the darkness of night,” it was essential for the public to see the facts.
When Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman came to the rostrum, Justice Ayesha Malik asked what the government’s stance was on live streaming. He replied that live streaming is an administrative matter, and the government would comply with whatever decision the bench makes.
During the hearing, Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked, “Our tragedy is that we misuse everything. We wanted to educate the public through live streaming, but instead, we exposed ourselves.”
Subsequently, the constitutional bench granted permission to broadcast the hearing of the 26th Constitutional Amendment case live. The court adjourned further proceedings until 11:30 a.m. the next day.