Of benches and judges!

Listen to article

As an outcome of the controversial 26th amendment, the formation of the Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench is under the scanner. Conventionally, the constitution of benches and the nomination of 'like-minded' judges come under discussion as and when it pertains to hearing of high-profile litigations.

This time around, a review petition challenging the majority decision of July 12, 2024 on the reserved seats is under question. The Sunni Ittehad Council's intention to challenge the composition of the existing 11-member constitutional bench has stirred a debate on how long this precedent of mistrust in superior judiciary will linger on the premise of political connotations.

Our political history testifies to the fact that judicial decisions, at times, have not been sacrosanct and leaned on the wrong side of the divide for reasons of exigency, trampling the judiciary's credibility in contravention of the dictates of the Constitution. In this Armageddon, all political parties were found to be tainting their image for a time-served concession as they went on to torpedo the spirit of rule of law and merit in decision-making.

This has to come to an end, and the way forward is to unite on a monolithic principle of letting the judiciary be free from executive coercions and dispense its duties with independence and fair play.

It is also incumbent at this point of time to revisit the 26th amendment and take a judicial review to ascertain whether the principle of the separation of powers is functioning as per the Constitution. The so-called 'court-packing' under the amendment has led to widespread societal unrest, as the executive holds a sway over judiciary in terms of bench formation, allegedly dictating it and sidelining senior judges.

The case under review, and the bench in vogue, have also hit some legal snags as the review petition is not being heard by the honourable judges who authored the July 12 decision. This altercation, already raised by a bona fide judge on the bench, as well as the SIC concerns on judges' leaning must get a fair hearing too for the sake of transparency and broad-based legitimacy.