In a startling courtroom declaration, Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked on Thursday that the judges of the apex court have accepted the 26th Constitutional Amendment, “whether they like it or not.” This admission emerged during a pivotal hearing on petitions challenging the controversial amendment.

The proceedings were conducted by an eight-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan. The panel also included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal.

Appearing on behalf of the Balochistan Bar Association, senior lawyer Muneer A. Malik advocated for the formation of a Full Court comprising all Supreme Court judges to hear the petitions. Aligning with arguments previously presented by counsel Hamid Khan, Malik insisted that a Full Court could still be constituted despite the new amendment.

The bench engaged in a rigorous debate over the proposal. Justice Ayesha Malik inquired if any legal barrier prevented the formation of a Full Court, while Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar probed whether the current panel possessed the jurisdiction to issue such a directive. Malik contended that the bench held the necessary judicial authority to make such an order.

Justice Musarrat Hilali introduced another dimension, suggesting that the rationale and necessity behind the 26th Amendment must be scrutinized before the bench could rule on its own jurisdiction. She also expressed the view that judges elevated after the amendment’s passage should ideally not be part of the bench hearing challenges against it.

Justice Mandokhail challenged this perspective, questioning rhetorically, ‘Are the new judges brought from another country?’ He recalled that both he and the Chief Justice had previously advocated for an all-inclusive constitutional bench to bolster public confidence in the institution.

Pushing for a resolution, he stated, ‘Leave aside the issue of jurisdiction – tell us a way where all judges can sit together on this bench.’

It was at this juncture that Justice Mandokhail made his significant observation about the judiciary’s reluctant acceptance of the constitutional change.

Following the conclusion of Malik’s submissions, lawyer Abid Zuberi briefly addressed the court, indicating his intent to reference prior legal precedents concerning the authority of the Practice and Procedure Committee.

The Supreme Court subsequently adjourned the hearing on the 26th Constitutional Amendment case until October 13, 2025.