Judges elevated to SC after 26th Amendment should not be in bench: Justice Hilali

#Judges #elevated #26th #Amendment #bench #Justice #Hilali

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Musarrat Hilali retained on Thursday that after the implementation of the 26th Amendment, these judges were raised in the Supreme Court, they should not be included in the challenges of the bench hearing against the opposition constitutional opportunities.

Justice Hilali’s comments came in October during a hearing on several petitions filed against the constitutional opportunities fought by Parliament last year.

The case was heard on the SC YouTube channel by an eight -member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, which includes Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Aisha, a country, Justice Saan Azar Rajoi, Justice Naim Haghan and Justice Naim Haghan.

The bench has started hearing the case after a nine -month break.

The amendment challenged the amendment in October 2024, including several parties, including the Pakistan Tehreek-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (G), Sunni Attaad Council (SIC), as well as the Bar Association (SCBA), the Bar Association (SCBA).

The constitutional adaptation, which is followed by, requires the legislature to select the Chief Justice, set the judge’s top positions and set up a constitutional bench.

During today’s hearing, the Balochistan High Court Bar Association (BHCA) Munir adopted the arguments of LHCBA lawyer Hameed Khan, presented on Wednesday, and said that there was a full court before the amendment.

Emphasizing that a bench comprising all SC judges should hear the case, the lawyer said that the constitutional bench has the necessary judicial powers and that anyone can issue a court order and there is no obstacle to preventing it.

Noting with Justice Aminuddin that the jurisdiction of the court falls in the qualities of the case, Justice Aisha questioned whether a complete court could be constituted in the light of the 26th Amendment.

For this, lawyer Malik said that he considered the constitutional bench as SC and claimed that the court did not lose its jurisdiction through amendment and that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) could nominate any judge.

“Whether a bench is constitutional or otherwise, the current one has the [necessary] Judicial powers, “the lawyer gave remarks, adding that the Judicial Committee could form a bench he wants.

Responding to the lawyer, Justice Hilali inquired how the current bench could decide on his jurisdiction.

Justice Hilali said, “The judges, whose promotion was promoted after the 26th constitutional amendment, should not sit on the bench.”

Reacting to these remarks, Justice Mandokhel questioned whether the new judges have been brought from another country and they remarked that whether with happiness or not, the Apex court judges have accepted the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

Speaking on the occasion, Justice Mazar noted that the new judges developed in SC had nothing to do with the amendment and that the four new judges served as Chief Justice of the High Courts.

Explaining his statement, Justice Hilali said his remarks had no malicious intentions.

“All judges are respected and they should not be dragged [in this matter]”Justice Mandokhil gave remarks, recalled that he and the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) have demanded that all judges be included in the constitutional bench during every JCP meeting.

After the country, lawyer Abid Zabri, who represents six former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), presented his arguments before the court and claimed that it is not necessary for all judges to sit on a bench in a complete court.

He said that the available judges can also meet the quorum in a complete court.

When asked who should ask the bench to make a full court, Zabri said that the bench would instruct the SC’s practice and procedures to the committee.

“Practice and Procedure Committee [constituted] The lawyer said that a complete court would be set up before the implementation of the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

The court adjourned the hearing until Monday, after hearing the arguments.