SIC urges Supreme Court to delay review hearing until ruling on 26th Amendment

On May 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pakistan was urged by the Supreme Islamic Council (SIC) to delay a review hearing until a ruling on the 26th Amendment is made. The petitions also called for live streaming of the proceedings, noting the widespread public interest and importance of judicial transparency.

SIC questioned the legitimacy of Article 191A, introduced through the 26th Amendment, which splits the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction between a permanent Constitutional Bench and other benches. It said this article is already under legal scrutiny in several constitutional petitions, particularly the clause transferring all pending and future appeals and reviews to the new bench.

The council argued this contradicts Article 188 of the Constitution, which governs the review process and requires such matters to return to the same bench that issued the original ruling. 'A review is not an appeal. It’s meant to be heard by the same judges,' the petition read, referencing Rule 8 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules 1980.

According to SIC, the transfer of review cases to a different bench strips away a critical safeguard in the judicial process. 'Removing the original bench from the review is not only unconstitutional it undermines judicial independence,' the petition claimed.

SIC further raised concerns over the role of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, saying its composition is influenced by the executive, especially parties involved in the current litigation. This, it said, casts doubt over the neutrality of the bench’s formation.

The original verdict was delivered by a 13-member full court led by then Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah authored the majority opinion, with Justice Yahya Afridi offering separate remarks. Justices Isa and Jamal Khan Mandokhel partially disagreed with the majority, while Justices Amin-ud Din Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan wrote dissenting notes.

Despite being available, six judges from the original bench including the author of the ruling have not been included in the current review bench. Instead, six judges who did not hear the original case are now on the panel. SIC termed this reshuffling as 'legally peculiar' and contrary to established court practices.

The council also noted the unusual delay in scheduling the review hearings, stating that the matter remained in limbo far beyond the typical three-month window. It hinted that the previous chief justice may have intentionally delayed the process until after the 26th Amendment came into force.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on SIC’s request for adjournment or the reconstitution of the review bench.