An eight-judge Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court (SC) approved on Tuesday a set of requests seeking the live streaming of proceedings on pleas challenging the 26th Amendment.
The Amendment, which was approved by both houses of parliament in October last year, altered judicial authority and tenure, and has been a lightning rod for debate with both opposition parties and legal experts questioning its impact on the judiciary’s autonomy.
It took away the SC’s suo motu powers, set the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) term at three years and empowered the prime minister to appoint the next CJP from among the three most senior SC judges. It also paved the way for the formation of the CB, which is now hearing petitions against the very legislation that led to its establishment.
It has been challenged by various high court bar associations, the PTI and others.
A CB headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprises Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan resumed hearing the set of pleas today, which were last taken up on January 27.
Today’s hearing
During today’s hearing, three matters were primarily discussed — the constitution of a full court to hear the pleas against the 26th Amendment, objections to the CB and live streaming of the proceedings.
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Aminuddin Khan said the bench would first hear arguments on requests for a full court hearing on the pleas and objections to CB. “We will decide on the matter of live streaming (of court proceedings) later,” he added.
At that, lawyer Khawaja Ahmad Hassan argued that arguments on pleas seeking a full court hearing should be live-streamed so that the public was also made aware of the grounds on which the request was being made. He then urged the court to first hear arguments on requests for streaming the proceedings live.
Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that matters of the bench were of relevance to the court, not the public. He asserted that the court would first take up the matter regarding the constitution of a full court.
At one point during the hearing, he said, “Things have to be managed. All of us are serving the public, we are all fulfilling our responsibilities.”
The counsel for Tehreek-i-Tahaffuz Ayeen-i-Pakistan Vice Chairperson Mustafa Khokhar, Shahid Jameel, informed the court that the SC registrar had raised objections over his client’s plea for a full court hearing.
“We filed an appeal against the objections,” he said, requesting the court to first decide Khokhar’s appeal. He further said that his client had also raised objections over the CB and urged the court to hear it along with the other petitions.
After consultation among the judges, Khokhar’s petition was allotted a number.
The lawyer representing the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government also presented arguments for a full court hearing of pleas.
He clarified that they did not have any objection regarding any of the members of the existing eight-judge CB but wanted a full court to hear the pleas.
During his arguments, Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed contended that every citizen had the right to information. However, neither was the draft of the 26th Amendment made public nor was there a public debate on it, he argued.
He then argued that at least proceedings should be live-streamed for public viewing.
He recalled that the 26th Amendment was approved by parliament “in the darkness of the night”, adding that previously court proceedings had also been streamed live, including those in Zulfikar Bhutto case and the case pertaining to the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act.
