Disagreements erupted during the 26th Amendment hearing at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Judges debated bench composition and procedural rules amid visible tension. Senior counsel Abid Shahid Zuberi argued all 16 judges present when the amendment passed should sit in the full court.
The eight-judge bench questioned forming a full court since neither the amendment nor the Supreme Court Rules 2025 addressed it. Justice Mandokhail asked Zuberi how a full court could function under these rules. Justice Malik cited earlier judgments allowing temporary flexibility in constitutional challenges.
READ MORE:Supreme court issues new 2025 rules
Zuberi explained that the current bench has eight judges, while the sanctioned strength is 15. He said intra-court appeals might be unavailable without extra judges. Justice Malik added the Judicial Commission of Pakistan could nominate additional judges to enable appeals. Mandokhail disagreed, insisting even a full court would not automatically allow appeals.
Tensions also arose over adopting the Supreme Court Rules 2025. Mandokhail claimed the rules were approved collectively, while Malik said they were circulated without proper discussion. Justice Mazhar supported Malik’s observation. Justice Hilali advised calm, and the Attorney General urged the court to avoid airing internal disputes publicly.
READ MORE:CJP empowered to form full court, CB told during 26 Amendment case hearing
After live-streaming was restored, the judges decided the case would not continue until records clarified rule adoption. The 26th Amendment hearing exposed procedural gaps and internal tensions within the Supreme Court, raising public interest in court operations.