Analysis of the Current Dispute Over the 26th Constitutional Amendment in Pakistan’s Supreme Court
The current tension within Pakistan’s Supreme Court revolves around the proposed hearings for the 26th Constitutional Amendment. This issue was spotlighted when Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar pressed Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Khan Afridi to schedule hearings for the petitions challenging this significant amendment promptly.
The Urging for Immediate Hearings
Justices Shah and Akhtar, who are part of the committee responsible for case assignments and bench formation under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act (2023), have been particularly vocal. They communicated their stance through a letter, indicating that the committee had resolved to hear these constitutional petitions via a full court session initially set for November 4. However, Chief Justice Afridi has yet to convene the necessary session, thereby escalating tensions within the judiciary.
A backdrop of the Dispute
The contention began on October 31, when Justices Shah and Akhtar formally requested Chief Justice Afridi to convene a meeting under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023. The focus of this meeting was to address petitions against the 26th Amendment, which proposes changes to judicial authority and tenure.
Steps Taken by the Justices
With no response from Chief Justice Afridi, Justices Shah and Akhtar they conducted an independent meeting in Justice Akhtar’s chambers to plan their action. Following this session, they decided by majority vote to present the amendment petitions before a full court on November 4. Despite this decision, the absence of a cause list has delayed any immediate hearing, prompting the justices to send another letter to Chief Justice Afridi, highlighting their concerns about the postponement.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
Justices Shah and Akhtar referenced Section 2(2) of the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act in their letter, arguing that the law mandates prompt action on such petitions. They informed the registrar of their decision on October 31, instructing the registrar to publicize the decision on the Supreme Court’s official website. Both emphasized the urgency of the matter, stating that it affects not only judicial authority but also public confidence in the legal process. They contended that the petitions challenging the amendment necessitate a comprehensive review by the full court due to their constitutional implications.
Growing Rift within the Supreme Court
Chief Justice Afridi’s decision to refrain from convening the full court has highlighted a growing divide within the Supreme Court. Legal analysts observe that such disagreements are unusual in Pakistan’s judiciary, especially regarding constitutional interpretation. Some experts believe that by not calling the full court, Chief Justice Afridi may be adopting a cautious approach to avoid potential judicial overreach or political entanglements.
Implications for Judicial Transparency and Public Confidence
As the petitions against the 26th Amendment await a hearing, the discord within Pakistan’s judiciary underscores the intricate and sensitive nature of constitutional amendments in the country. Justices Shah and Akhtar insist that a full court hearing is crucial for upholding judicial transparency and ensuring thorough deliberation on the matter.
Awaiting Resolution
The ongoing dispute continues to stir debate within legal circles and the general public. Many are looking for a formal response from Chief Justice Afridi regarding whether the petitions will be included in the cause list in the coming weeks. This situation is not just a procedural matter but one that touches on the core of judicial authority, constitutional law, and public trust in the legal system.
In conclusion, the current scenario highlights the complexities inherent in constitutional amendments and the challenges they pose to judicial processes in Pakistan. The resolution of this issue will likely have significant implications for the judiciary and the broader legal framework within the country.
