The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned the hearing of petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment till November 10. The case was heard by an eight-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan.
The bench comprised on Justice Jamal Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hasan.
During the proceedings, advocates Uzair Bhandari and Shahid Jameel presented their arguments. The court deferred Shahid Jameel’s remaining submissions to a later date.
Advocate Uzair Bhandari argued that a full court is a permanent body, not one constituted occasionally, and its definition is given under Article 176 of the Constitution. He added that, according to the Practice and Procedure Committee’s decision of October 31, the full court’s order would be binding on all.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked whether the committee was established under the Constitution, to which Bhandari replied that it was formed under the Practice and Procedure Act. Justice Mazhar remarked that Article 191-A could not be ignored since the present bench was constituted under it.
Justice Ayesha Malik observed that Article 191-A does not curtail powers but instead strengthens the Supreme Court.
A brief exchange of light remarks also took place. When Advocate Bhandari said, “The Lords are asking all the questions while the Ladyships remain silent,” Justice Musarrat Hilali smiled and replied, “We have already understood.” Justice Jamal Mandokhail added, “The women judges are wiser than us.”
The court directed that the counsel for the Sunni Ittehad Council would continue his arguments at the next hearing. The case was adjourned till November 10, 2025.
‘Ttribunals must examine reasons for delay before rejecting appeals’
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that service tribunals cannot dismiss a government employee’s appeal solely on grounds of delay. They must assess the reasons for delay, review the departmental authority’s decision, and rule in accordance with the law.
A five-member bench comprising Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, and Justice Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb announced the verdict. The judgment, authored by Justice Ayesha A. Malik, resolved conflicting decisions issued by different service tribunals across the federation and provinces.