SC questions constitutionality of 26th amendment: Heated exchanges mark proceedings

Islamabad: The Supreme Court of Pakistan witnessed intense exchanges during the hearing on the constitutionality of the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

An 8-member larger bench, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, questioned the legality and formation of the bench itself as senior lawyer Akram Sheikh argued for the matter to be heard by the full court.

Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan expressed his dissatisfaction with the arguments presented, stating, “Not a single constitutional point has been raised so far. Someone even said to forget the 26th Amendment. We are all accountable to the nation.”

The proceedings took an unusual turn when Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked senior lawyer Akram Sheikh whom he was representing. Sheikh responded that he was appearing in a personal capacity.

Justice Mandokhail remarked that Latif Khosa was listed as his counsel, to which Sheikh replied that Khosa was not his lawyer and “couldn’t even spell my name correctly.”

The bench pressed Sheikh on whether his petition was filed without his consent, to which he reiterated that he was appearing independently. Justice Amin-ud-Din asked, “Then guide us constitutionally—how should we proceed to form a full court?”

Akram Sheikh replied, “If you let me speak, I will provide a constitutional path. I don’t tell stories—moments of union pass in seconds, but separation is felt in months.” The poetic response led Justice Amin-ud-Din to remark, “You’ve been speaking for 15 minutes but haven’t presented a single constitutional argument.”

Sheikh argued that the 26th Amendment had “broken the foundation of the Constitution and dismantled a key institution of the state,” calling the 1997 Malik Asad case a turning point of legal decline. He urged the court to declare the 26th Amendment void.

Justice Mandokhail responded, “But first we need to decide what this bench is. The 26th Amendment is now part of the Constitution unless someone asks to remove it.”

Justice Shahid Bilal questioned, “If we, the eight judges, are beneficiaries of this amendment and cannot hear the case, then who among the judges is unaffected and eligible to hear it?”

Justice Akram Sheikh insisted that the full court should hear the case, arguing that even a 15-member bench would be insufficient. Justice Amin-ud-Din advised Sheikh not to label the amendment as “controversial,” to which Sheikh said, “Sir, I will say it’s under challenge in English. This is a matter of translation.”

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked whether all 24 judges should sit on the bench. Sheikh replied, “If any judge has a guilty conscience or conflict, they can recuse. But the institution must remain above reproach.”

Justice Mandokhail noted wryly, “Even Parliament claims to act according to Quaid-e-Azam’s vision while displaying his picture.”

Sheikh concluded his arguments with poetry and a personal remark, expressing hope that the hearing would conclude before Justice Amin-ud-Din’s retirement. Justice Mandokhail quipped, “You’ve summed up a river in a teacup.”

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan challenged Sheikh’s argument, saying, “You wish for 24 judges to hear the case but haven’t presented a legal route. Your demand is like ‘the spoiled child who wants the moon.’”