ISLAMABAD: The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), which was reorganized under the 26th Amendment, appointed Justice Aminuddin Khan as the head of the seven-judge constitutional bench during its first session on Tuesday. Yahya Afridi, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), was one of the members who dissented. The majority vote was seven to five.
Justices Aminuddin Khan and Ayesha A. Malik of Punjab, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan of Balochistan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Hassan Azhar Rizvi of Sindh, and Justice Musarrat Hilali of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are among the seven judges on the constitutional bench, which represents all four provinces.
The bench will be led by Justice Aminuddin, who is the fourth most senior Supreme Court justice.
CJP Yahya Afridi, senior puisne judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, and PTI opposition leaders Shibli Faraz and Omar Ayub in the Senate and National Assembly were among those in the minority.
Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan, Senator Farooq Hamid Naek, MNA Sheikh Aftab Ahmad, Roshan Khursheed Bharucha, and Akhtar Hussain, a representative of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), made up the majority of the members.
According to legislation voted by parliament on Monday night, which expanded the number of Supreme Court judges from 17 to 34, the nomination process for the constitutional bench is set for a period of 60 days.
Under Article 175(A) of the Constitution, CJP Yahya Afridi, who chaired the JCP meeting, summarized the judges’ opinions on the constitutional bench and proposed a set term for the panel. The opinions of other attendees were also discussed in detail. A seven-member constitutional bench representing all four provinces was ultimately accepted by the JCP by a seven-to-five majority. The bench will serve a two-month tenure.
Another JCP meeting to select judges from the Sindh High Court for its constitutional bench is anticipated in two weeks, as the Sindh Assembly has already passed a resolution to establish a constitutional bench in the province by a simple majority under Article 202-A of the recently enacted 26th Amendment.
During the conference, PBC’s Akhtar Hussain proposed that justices appointed to the constitutional bench be chosen based on seniority, eliminating judges who were considered for the CJP job or who had profited from the parliamentary panel.
The minority, however, contended that the CJP ought to preside over the constitutional bench and that all Supreme Court justices ought to be a part of it, so creating a full court.
The majority, however, rejected this idea, arguing that it would create an anomaly because any appeal of the constitutional bench’s decision would be heard by a larger bench of justices who were not involved in the initial decision.
Quorum problem
Omar Ayub initially objected to the JCP quorum, pointing out that one member was missing. When this matter was submitted to a vote, the majority agreed that, even with one member absent, the proceedings could proceed in conformity with the Constitution.
CJP Afridi greeted the attendees and congratulated them on their nominations, according to an official statement. In order to assist its operations, the commission also talked of creating a special secretariat. The JCP gave the CJP permission to move on with its rule-making and establishment after careful deliberation.
To complement its operations, the commission talked of creating a special secretariat.
Which cases involving constitutional interpretation should be referred to the constitutional bench will be determined by a three-judge committee made up of the Chief Justice, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, and Justice Aminuddin Khan, who is the head of the constitutional bench. The committee was established under the amended Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023.
A source claims that a letter from Justices Shah and Munib Akhtar was not taken into consideration by the JCP.
In order to expedite the scheduling of constitutional petitions contesting the 26th Amendment, the CJP was urged in the letter dated October 31 to call a meeting of the three-judge committee.
Due to the urgency highlighted in the letter, the two judges separately summoned an emergency committee meeting and decided to set a hearing date for November 4 for the petitions.
