ISLAMABAD: The seven-judge constitutional bench on Tuesday made it abundantly evident that, in all actuality, it serves as the complete court when it comes to considering constitutional cases.
The observation seems to clear up any confusion on how constitutional matters that were heard by the entire court, which included all Supreme Court judges, prior to the 26th Constitutional Amendment were handled. One such case is the reserved seats ruling, which was heard by a full court of 13 judges. The Supreme Court has not yet taken up the review petition for this case.
The legality of the 26th Amendment has also been contested in a number of petitions submitted to the Supreme Court. The petitioners have asked for a full court, including all of the highest court’s judges, to hear all of these challenges.
The statement was made on Tuesday as the seven-judge constitutional bench began considering a case concerning the imposition of a cess on various ghee production facilities.
After the 26th Amendment, Justice Mazhar believes the idea of a complete court is no longer relevant.
Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha A. Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Naeem Akhtar Afghan made up the bench, which was presided over by Justice Aminuddin Khan.
When one of the attorneys brought up during the hearing that the full court had already rendered a decision on the issue, Justice Mazhar clarified that the idea of the full court had been rendered obsolete after the 26th Amendment was ratified.
Justice Mandokhail noted, “Consider this seven-judge constitutional bench as the full court now.” He added that he should step aside from the case because he was a member of the Balochistan High Court, which had already rendered a decision on the current issue.
However, the bench postponed the hearing indefinitely and sent notices to every province.
Senior attorney Hamid Khan told the media that in order to make sure the legitimacy of the 26th Amendment is decided once and for all, the bench should wait for the full court to decide on the challenges to the amendment. He was against applications contesting the validity of the amendment being heard by the constitutional bench.
The constitutional bench, he claimed, was only one of the SC benches and lacked the power to declare itself the complete court. He believed that the SC now had two competing courts as a result of the 26th Amendment. “We demand that a full court consisting of all apex court judges hear challenges to the amendment,” he stated.
Case returned to the regular bench
Additionally, a case was returned to a regular bench led by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah by the constitutional bench.
Justice Aminuddin questioned how the matter had been assigned to the constitutional bench when it took up an appeal that Saeed Ahmed Khoso had filed through his attorney Liaquat Tareen.
At this point, Justice Ayesha Malik clarified that she was a member of the ordinary bench that, at the request of the involved attorney, had sent the case to the constitutional bench on October 23.
Justice Mazhar emphasized that only cases involving constitutional interpretation issues should be sent to the constitutional bench, saying that not all cases should be submitted there.
The petition was denied.
A petition contesting the army chief’s extension was also denied by the constitutional panel.
Since the petitioner did not show up for court, Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi’s plea was denied for lack of prosecution.
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the registrar office’s objections to the petition’s challenge to the office’s decision to return the matter.
The petitioner claimed that a three-year extension after retirement was unfair and asked the SC to rule that the army chief’s appointment be based on seniority in his initial plea.
