The ongoing judicial scrutiny of the 26th Amendment has reignited a vital national conversation on the balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial independence. Passed during an overnight session of Parliament in October 2024, the amendment introduced significant changes to the composition and functioning of the Supreme Court, particularly concerning the formation of benches and the scope of judicial authority. While the government maintains that the amendment aims to streamline judicial processes and enhance institutional efficiency, critics—including opposition parties and segments of the legal fraternity—have raised concerns about its implications for the separation of powers and the autonomy of the judiciary.
At the heart of the legal challenge is the question of whether the amendment infringes upon the Supreme Court’s internal autonomy, particularly its ability to constitute benches under Article 191 of the Constitution. The petitioners argue that the amendment undermines the court’s independence by allowing external influence over its internal procedures. The government, however, contends that the amendment was passed through a constitutionally valid process and reflects the will of the elected representatives.
The Supreme Court’s current deliberations, led by an eight-member constitutional bench, have been marked by intense debate over whether the matter should be heard by a full court or remain within the purview of the designated constitutional bench. Justice Ayesha Malik has clarified that the 26th Amendment does not bar a full court from hearing such cases, while Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar has emphasized that regular and constitutional benches are “branches of the same tree,” underscoring the unity of the judiciary despite procedural distinctions.
The controversy has also been colored by political allegations. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) claimed that several of its lawmakers were coerced into supporting the amendment, while the Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M) alleged similar pressure on its senators. These claims, though serious, remain unproven and must be addressed through appropriate legal channels rather than public speculation. The judiciary’s role, in this context, is not to arbitrate political grievances but to interpret the Constitution with impartiality and fidelity to democratic principles.
Moving forward, a solution-oriented approach must prioritize institutional harmony and constitutional clarity. The Supreme Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, must ensure that its interpretation of the 26th Amendment reinforces judicial independence without undermining the legislative process. At the same time, Parliament must engage in transparent and inclusive lawmaking, especially when constitutional amendments are at stake. The formation of a full court to hear the case, while not legally mandated, could serve as a confidence-building measure, reinforcing public trust in the judiciary’s impartiality.
Ultimately, the resolution of the 26th Amendment case must uphold the foundational principles of Pakistan’s constitutional order: the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the supremacy of the Constitution. In doing so, the state can demonstrate that institutional reform and democratic integrity are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing. The moment calls not for confrontation, but for consensus—rooted in respect for the Constitution and the institutions it empowers.
Read more exper opinions here: https://thepublicpurview.com/category/blog/
For climate-related stories, visit: The Green Post
