smartcybers786@gmail.com 
Police officers walk past the Supreme Court building in Islamabad. — Reuters/File
#issues #notices #parties #26th #Amendment #case
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the parties in petitions like the 26th Amendment and adjourned the hearing for three weeks.
An eight-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, challenged the amendment and heard the voice of several similar requests. Former Presidents of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-A-A-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), Sunni Attaad Council (SIC) as well as the Bar Association (SCBA) (SCBA). What was the challenge Other members of the bench included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Aisha A. Malik, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Masrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hasan.
The constitutional bench also issued notices to the parties to form a full court as well as direct broadcasting on the matter. For the petitioners, including Hamid Khan, Faisal Siddiqui and others, the lawyer requested the establishment of a full court bench to hear the case. However, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokal observed that a complete court bench cannot be constituted according to the lawyer’s wishes. He further observed that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan nominated the Constitutional Bench judges and said that a three -member committee of the Constitutional Bench had decided on the constitutional cases.
Addressing the petitioner’s lawyer, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that he (the lawyer) was confused by the full court bench, asked him to consider the constitutional bench as a complete court. However, the petitioner’s lawyer requested to set up a full court comprising all the judges of the Supreme Court.
On this, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that it was not possible and made it clear that the constitutional matter would only be heard by the constitutional bench. Justice Aisha remarked a country that there was no restriction on making a full court in which he added that in the past, applications were made for the full court.
Likewise, Faisal Siddiqui lawyer claimed that the 26th amendment was against the principle of separation of powers. Similarly, another lawyer for the applicants claimed that the amendment was incomplete at the time of approval of the amendment.
On this, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokil inquired whether the voting for the amendment was done on the total members or the available members. Faisal Siddiqui Advocate replied that the voting was done on the available members, to which Justice Jamal Mandokil told him that the total number of available members was enough to meet two -thirds of the house. Justice Aisha A. Malik asked the lawyer for the petitioner whether representation of all the provinces of the house is complete.
The lawyer replied that the representation of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in the Senate was not completed, as the Senate elections were not yet to the extent of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Another applicant’s lawyer, Barrister Salahuddin, said that Akhtar Mengal had prepared a map of the 26th Amendment in his petition.
Salahuddin claimed that “how free the members of the Assembly were to vote.” Justice Ayesha observed that the decision of the safe seats had not yet been implemented, in which Salahuddin’s lawyer said that the petition also had a point of specific seats.
Another applicant’s lawyer, Shahid Jamil, said that only the real representatives of the people have the power to amend the constitution. On this, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked the lawyer whether he wanted to wait for the first election cases and then wait for the constitutional amendment.
In this case, the matter related to the constitutional amendment will continue for years, “Justice Mazhar gave remarks. Later, the constitutional bench adjourned the hearing for three weeks after issuing notice to the parties.
