SC to live stream hearings challenging 26th Constitutional Amendment
An eight-judge Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court (SC) took up on Tuesday a cluster of pleas challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment - legislation that rewired judicial authority, curtailed tenure norms, and sparked fierce debate over the independence of judiciary.
The bench indicated it would first address the petitions calling for the formation of a full court, before turning to requests seeking live streaming of the proceedings.
Tehreek-i-Tahaffuz Ayeen-i-Pakistan Chairperson Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar was represented by counsel Shahid Jameel, who filed an appeal for the constitution of a full court. Mr Jameel told the court: “Objections were raised on our petition regarding the formation of a full court.”
Read: CB gears up for 26th Amendment case
Following deliberation, the bench ordered that the petition be formally registered.
Khawaja Ahmad Hosain, counsel for former Chief Justice Jawad S. Khawaja, requested that the proceedings be broadcast live. “The entire nation wants to see what is happening,” he said. He further argued that the hearings on the petition seeking the formation of a full court bench should also be live streamed.
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa government representative stated: “We have no personal objection to any judge on the bench.”
Barrister Salahuddin argued that “every citizen should have access to information of public importance”. He contended that the 26th Amendment was passed “in the dead of night”, without public debate, and called for greater transparency.
In a decision favouring the petitioners, the Supreme Court has granted approval for live streaming of the proceedings concerning the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
The case has been adjourned until tomorrow.
The 26th Consitutional Amendment
The 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2024, introduced sweeping reforms to Pakistan’s judicial system. Passed in October 2024, the law abolished the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers under Article 184(3) of the 1973 Constitution, fixed a three-year term for the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) in place of the seniority-based succession, and authorised the prime minister—through a parliamentary committee—to appoint the next top judge from among the three most senior justices.
It also restructured the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) and altered bench-formation powers, expanding the role of Parliament and the executive. Additionally, the amendment required the state to eliminate Riba (interest) from the financial system by January 1, 2028.
The Bench and the Pleas
An eight-judge Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the petitions challenging the amendment.
A total of 36 petitions—filed by high court bar associations, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), civil society actors, and former judges—questioned the legislative process, constitutional validity, and the amendment’s implications for judicial independence.
Petitioners urged the court to strike down the entire amendment on grounds of procedural impropriety, arguing that it may not have secured the two-thirds majority required under Article 239 under 1973 Constitution. Alternatively, they sought to invalidate specific clauses related to the CJP’s appointment, judges’ performance evaluations through the JCP, and the new constitutional bench framework.
They also demanded the restoration of the original Article 175A(3), which mandated seniority-based appointments of the CJP, and challenged subsequent laws like the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2024, arguing that they stem from an unconstitutional foundation.
Several petitioners further requested that the case be heard by the full Supreme Court rather than the CB formed under the contested amendment, citing the gravity of the constitutional questions involved.
Key Arguments and Contentions
A central contention in the petitions is that the 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2024, erodes judicial independence by shifting control over key judicial functions—from nominations and appointments to bench composition—toward the executive and legislature.
Opponents argue that the amendment disturbs the constitutional balance of power envisioned in the 1973 Constitution, allowing the government to exert direct influence over the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) and the appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP). Several senior lawyers and judicial observers have termed the changes a “blow to judicial independence.”
The removal of the Supreme Court’s suo motu jurisdiction under Article 184(3) has also become a flashpoint. Supporters of the amendment claim it helps curb judicial overreach and prevents the top court from acting as an unelected policymaker.
Read More: Lawyers to protest 26th Amendment
However, critics counter that this power has historically enabled the judiciary to protect citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly in cases where individuals or groups lack the means to file petitions themselves. They argue that curtailing this authority leaves serious rights violations without a constitutional remedy.
The amendment also sought to address controversies surrounding “like-minded benches”, a term critics have used for panels allegedly composed to deliver favourable rulings. Yet, despite the reform, concerns persist—this time over potential executive influence in bench formation. Detractors warn that rather than promoting neutrality, the change may simply replace judicial discretion with government-aligned composition, undermining confidence in the court’s impartiality.
Petitioners have further questioned the legislative process through which the amendment was enacted, alleging it was rushed through Parliament in secrecy, with limited debate and possible coercion of lawmakers. They have urged the Supreme Court to determine whether the requisite "two-thirds" majority in each house was genuinely and freely exercised, as required under Article 239 of the Constitution.
Many have also called for the case to be heard by a full court rather than the eight-judge Constitutional Bench (CB) formed under the disputed amendment, citing precedents where full court hearings were convened for constitutional challenges, including those to the 18th Amendment (2010), 21st Amendment (2015), and the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.
Some petitions additionally contest administrative actions by the court’s registrar—such as returning or refusing to register pleas for a full court hearing—and demand that these objections be overturned. Among the petitioners, Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, vice chairperson of the Tehreek-i-Tahaffuz Ayeen-i-Pakistan, has challenged the registrar’s decision to return his plea, arguing that under Article 184(3), the registrar lacks jurisdiction to reject petitions addressing questions of public importance. He has appealed against the registrar’s action, calling it a “procedural overreach” that undermines judicial access.
Also Read: Khokhar seeks full court on 26th amendment
Earlier, Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar had also urged Chief Justice Yahya Afridi to convene a full court for the 26th Amendment challenges, stressing that the issue was of “constitutional magnitude” and warranted deliberation by the entire bench of the apex court. However, the CJP declined, reasoning that such a move might undermine collegiality among judges and expose internal deliberations to undue public commentary.
Meanwhile, petitioners continue to demand greater public transparency. They have called for live streaming of proceedings, citing precedents such as the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto reference and the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. Lawyers argue that since the amendment was passed without adequate public consultation or parliamentary debate, the ongoing hearings should be made accessible to the public to restore confidence in the process.
The Supreme Court today delivered its verdict on renewed calls for a full court hearing and live-streamed proceedings to ensure transparency on the series of petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2024, following weeks of intense hearings and public debate.