ANSAR BHATTI
ISLAMABAD, Oct 8: Senior lawyer Hamid Khan on Wednesday concluded his arguments before the Supreme Court in the high-profile case challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment, contending that only a full court has the constitutional authority to hear such a matter.
During the proceedings, Hamid Khan presented several examples from Pakistan’s judicial history spanning the last seven decades, asserting that all major constitutional cases — from Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan’s case to the 1973 Constitution interpretation disputes — were heard by full court benches. He argued that this long-standing judicial tradition and practice ensured transparency, uniformity, and public confidence in constitutional adjudication.
Khan maintained that since the validity of the 26th Amendment itself was under challenge, the current bench could not derive its authority from it. He contended that, in his view, “the 26th Amendment does not exist in the eyes of the law,” and therefore the present bench should be treated as a regular Supreme Court bench, not a constitutional bench formed under the amendment. He urged that the matter be referred to the Chief Justice of Pakistan for the constitution of a full court to decide the question of law.
However, members of the bench observed that the current judicial structure and circumstances differ from those of the past. The judges pointed out that under the post-26th Amendment framework, a constitutional bench had already been designated to hear such cases, and the Chief Justice was no longer responsible for forming benches in the same way as before.
In response, Hamid Khan insisted that until the validity of the 26th Amendment is determined, no new mechanism can override the Chief Justice’s traditional administrative role in bench formation. He concluded that the only way to ensure constitutional propriety was to have the case placed before all available judges of the Supreme Court sitting together.
After the conclusion of Hamid Khan’s arguments, the hearing was adjourned till Thursday at 11:30 a.m., when other counsels are scheduled to present their arguments for and against the 26th Amendment.
The case has drawn intense legal and political interest, as its outcome is expected to clarify the extent of judicial independence and the procedure for constituting benches to hear constitutional matters in the post-amendment era.
