A contentious debate over the formation of a full court and a potential conflict of interest involving the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) dominated Wednesday’s hearing of petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment, compelling the Supreme Court to postpone the proceedings until October 20. The eight-member bench grappled with its authority to constitute a larger panel, with one justice pointedly remarking that the CJP is a “beneficiary” of the disputed legislation.

The case, which examines the legality of the amendment passed by Parliament last year, is being adjudicated by a constitutional bench led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan. The panel also comprises Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.

Nearly three dozen petitioners are challenging the amendment’s legality. The challengers include political parties such as Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), and the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), alongside influential legal bodies like the Lahore High Court Bar Association, Karachi Bar Association, and seven former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).

During the session, lawyer Abid Zuberi, representing former presidents of the Pakistan Bar Council, contended that the CJP holds the authority to direct the formation of a full court. ‘There is no restriction on the judicial powers available under Article 75 of the Constitution,’ Zuberi stated.

This assertion was met with skepticism from the bench. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan observed that issuing a judicial order for a full court would fall outside the jurisdiction of judges not part of the current bench. He disagreed with Zuberi’s suggestion that the CJP could exercise administrative powers in this context, saying no such authority existed.

Further legal deliberation came from Justice Ayesha Malik, who questioned whether Article 191A imposed any restriction on passing judicial orders and if the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) could be directed to form a full court. At one point, Justice Jamal Mandokhail noted to the lawyer, ‘I suggested including all judges in the constitutional bench, but you [Zuberi] opposed it,’ a point Zuberi clarified he did not oppose.

Justice Amin-ud-Din further noted that the request was not for a complete 16-member full court but for a bench comprising judges who were part of the judiciary before the 26th Amendment was enacted. He added that the constitutional committee of judges determines such formations by a majority decision.

The hearing’s most striking moment came from Justice Mussarat Hilali, who highlighted the sensitive nature of the full court demand. “If the CJP is asked to form a full court, remember that the CJP himself is a beneficiary of the 26th Amendment, while Justice Mansoor Ali Shah would be a victim,” she remarked, bringing the issue of judicial impartiality to the forefront of the proceedings.