The 26th Constitutional Amendment, enacted in October 2024 have introduced significant changes to the structure and functioning of Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC), particularly concerning its jurisdiction and operational dynamics. A new Article 191A in Constitution has been inserted, mandating the formation of Constitutional Benches within the SC. These benches, comprising judges nominated by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, are tasked with handling cases involving constitutional interpretation and significant legal questions. This specialization aims to streamline the adjudication of complex constitutional matters. The recent amendment has also removed the SC’s authority to initiate cases on its own (suo motu). Previously, the SC could proactively address issues of public importance without a formal petition. Now, the court can only act upon applications filed under its jurisdiction, limiting its ability to address matters unless formally brought before it. The Chief Justice and Supreme Court of Pakistan has now ceased the practice of fixing cases for hearing independently, and this change comes following the implementation of the 26th Constitutional amendment and the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, which introduces a new mechanism for the allocation of cases and even now the jurisdiction of Chief Justice has been finished which he had earlier under Supreme Court Rules 1980. There is no legal jurisdiction available with any other bench of SC after 26th Constitutional Amendment except that only lies with the Constitutional Bench to hear and fix cases which are barred under Clause 3, 4 and 5 of Article 191A of Constitution. The new framework for case fixation has been handled solely by a committee established under the Practice and Procedure Act both for regular and constitutional matters. If the committee determines that a case falls under Clauses 3, 4, and 5 of Article 191A of the Constitution, they have no choice but to refer it to the Constitutional bench and then the other committee constituted under Article 191A would decide its date of fixation. The constitutional bench is consisting of at least five judges, to be nominated by a committee made up of the Presiding Judge and the next two most senior judges from among the judges nominated under Clause 1 – will hear and decide such matters for the purposes of clause 2 under clause 4 of Article 191A of the Constitution. Further, Clause 3 of Article 184 of the Constitution restricts the SC that it shall not make an order or give direction or make a declaration on its own or beyond the contents of any application filed under this Clause. Clause 3 of Article 191A of constitution restricts SC benches other than Constitutional benches to “exercise such jurisdictions vested in the Supreme Court such as original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184, appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under clause 3 of Article 185, where a judgment or order of a high court passed under Article 199 involves the constitutionality of any law or a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 186, and the present case pending before regular bench clearly falls in such category. All petitions, appeals, or review applications against judgments rendered or orders passed to which clause 2 Article 191A applies that were pending or filed in the Supreme Court prior to the 26th Amendment’s commencement would now be transferred to the Constitutional Benches in accordance with clause 5 of Article 191A. Only benches established under this clause will be able to hear and decide these cases, and all petitions, appeals, or review applications against judgments rendered or orders passed to which Clause 2 applies that were pending or filed in the Supreme Court prior to the 26th Amendment’s commencement would now be transferred to the Constitutional Benches in accordance with clause 5 of Article 191A. Only benches established under this clause will be able to hear and decide the cases of constitutional and legal interpretation. Thus Clause 3, 4 and 5 of Article 191A of the Constitution bars the regular bench which requires constitutional and legal interpretation including the exercise of original jurisdiction prescribed under Article 184 of the Constitution. Even now the full court of SC lacks the jurisdiction to entertain such cases which restricts the jurisdiction of regular bench under Clause 3, 4 and 5 of Article 191A of the Constitution. There is now no legal jurisdiction available with any other bench of SC in view of 26th Constitutional amendment except that only lie with the constitutional bench as constituted by judicial commission to hear and fix such cases which are barred under Clause 3, 4 and 5 of Article 191A of the Constitution, thus cognizance and passing such judicial orders including issuing contempt notice by a regular bench and insisting for such fixation before them which legally require interpretation of the Constitution and law would not only contrary to the clear provisions in field of the Constitution as amended recently and under the Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 but also seems without jurisdiction. The writer is a practicing lawyer at Supreme Court and has served as Chairman, Federal Excise & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and Senior Advisor Federal Ombudsman. Email: hafizahsaan47 @gmail.com