26th Constitutional Amendment ‘not controversial’: Justice Amin-Ud-Din

#26th #Constitutional #Amendment #controversial #Justice #AminUdDin

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Aminuddin Khan on Monday opposed the 26th Constitutional Amendment terming it as “controversial”.

“Don’t say the 26th [Constitutional] The amendment is controversial,” Justice Aminuddin remarked, while presiding over an eight-judge bench hearing several petitions against the constitutional provisions passed by Parliament in October last year.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandukil, Justice Ayesha Ek Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hasan are also included in this bench.

As many as three dozen applicants, including seven former presidents of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), Sunni Attihad Council (SIC), Lahore High Court Bar Association, Lahore Bar Association, Karachi Bar Association, Karachi Bar Association as well as the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). Constitutional amendment.

During today’s hearing, senior advocate Akram Sheikh appeared before the court in his personal capacity and appealed to the court to constitute a 24-member full bench.

“The court should not be over-packed by adding more judges [….] I leave the issue of conflict of interest to the judge,” the lawyer said, questioning why the case was being heard by the present bench.

Asserting that the court has to follow a “stare judgment” (precedent), the lawyer said elections have been held in the country and some people believe it will be scrutinized. Therefore, argued Sheikh, the foundation was laid for the 26th Amendment.

“The 26th Amendment has severed the Constitution and one of the organs of the state [judiciary],” he remarked.

The lawyer noted, “I hope Allah gives the judges the courage to declare the 26th Amendment ‘null and void.’

To this, Justice Mandokhil said: “Is the 26th Amendment now part of the Constitution or do you say it should be removed from it?”

When Justice Aminuddin expressed regret that the lawyer had not presented a single legal and constitutional point, the lawyer replied that there were existing judgments according to which the eight judges could not hear the said case.

Responding to lawyer Shaikh’s argument that the entire SC should be given an opportunity to ratify Article 191-A, Justice Aminuddin said: “If you feel you want to go to the competent forum, go to the Chief Justice”.

Elaborating on the nature of the Constitution Bench on this occasion, Justice Mandokhil admitted that judges have two roles, namely, one is a judge acting in a general capacity and the other is a part of a Constitution Bench.

“You said that we eight judges can’t invalidate the 26th Amendment because we’re the beneficiaries. Then, which judges are not affected by the 26th Amendment and should hear this case?” Justice Bilal Hasan inquired.

When Justice Mazhar was asked whether all 24 judges of the SC should hear the said case, lawyer Shaikh said that his position is that if a judge’s conscience is troubled, he should not hear the case.

After completion of Shaikh’s arguments, petitioner Shabar Raza Rizvi presented his arguments and said that the Practice and Procedure Committee can constitute a full court.

“The matter should be heard by the SC and not a bench,” Rizvi said.

“Do you want 16 judges or 24 judges to hear the case? asked Justice Mandukil.

Rizvi replied, “I have no objection to 24 judges hearing the case.”

The court then adjourned the hearing till 11:30 am on Wednesday (tomorrow).