Supreme Court allows live streaming of reserved seats case

ISLAMABAD, MAY 22 (DNA): The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench on Thursday allowed live streaming of proceedings in the reserved seats case, issuing directives to its IT department to make necessary arrangements.

The court announced a short order on multiple petitions filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), while rejecting several related pleas, including objections to the composition of the bench and the request to hear the 26th Constitutional Amendment case prior to the reserved seats case.

The Supreme Court also dismissed the plea seeking to defer the reserved seats hearing until after a decision on the 26th Amendment petitions. 

The court made it clear that the hearing would proceed as scheduled and adjourned the proceedings until Monday.

A detailed verdict will be released later, while the short order has already been pronounced in court.

Today’s hearing

During the hearing on review petitions related to the reserved seats case at the Supreme Court, a larger bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan resumed proceedings.

Senior lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing women affected by the Supreme Court’s 12 July verdict, completed his arguments on the objections raised by the SIC.

Makhdoom contended that Article 191-A and the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act override the application of the 1980 Rules in matters concerning the composition of benches.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked the counsel to specify which provisions of the 1980 Rules conflict with the new constitutional amendment.

In response, Makhdoom maintained that the 1980 Rules are inconsistent with the latest constitutional framework, particularly regarding the scope of review hearings.

He noted that the new constitutional amendment outlines the jurisdiction of the constitutional bench, whereas, under the 1980 Rules, review petitions were heard by the original bench.

He argued that after the 26th Amendment, cases involving constitutional interpretation must be reviewed by the Constitutional Bench.

Makhdoom further challenged the number of judges on the current bench, asserting that, in his view, it should be considered a 13-member bench, not 11. He said that in such a bench, a majority decision would require at least seven judges.

He also mentioned that a petition had been filed seeking live broadcast of the case and that the SIC had no objection should the court decide in favour of live streaming.

Another request was also submitted, asking the court to adjourn proceedings until a decision on the 26th Amendment is announced. However, Makhdoom Ali Khan stressed that it is the prerogative of the court—not any petitioner—to decide the scheduling of cases.

He warned that if the adjournment request were granted, the Constitutional Bench would be unable to hear any petitions until the 26th Amendment case is decided. This, he said, would set a precedent, encouraging other petitioners to make similar requests based on personal preferences.