SC minutes reveal judges’ rift over 26th Amendment hearing

F.P. Report

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has, for the first time, made public the minutes of judges’ committee meetings from October 31, 2024, to May 29, 2025, shedding light on a major disagreement among senior judges over how to hear constitutional petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

The documents reveal that the dispute began when Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Muneeb Akhtar proposed that the petitions be heard by a full court. They even decided during an October 31 meeting to schedule the case for November 4, 2024, before all judges of the Supreme Court.

However, Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi rejected the idea, arguing in a written response that under Article 191A of the Constitution, only a Constitutional Bench — not the full court — can hear such petitions filed under Article 184(3). He pointed out that Sub-Clause 4 of Article 191A entrusts case scheduling to the Constitutional Committee of Judges rather than the regular judges’ committee.

The CJP also cited the Judges Committee Act, 2023, as the legal framework governing such decisions. In his letter, he acknowledged the concerns of his fellow judges but maintained that convening a full court session was neither legally required nor appropriate.

CJP Afridi further revealed that he had personally sought the opinions of all 13 Supreme Court judges. According to the minutes, nine judges supported hearing the case before the Constitutional Bench, while only two — Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Muneeb Akhtar — insisted on a full court. The remaining judges’ opinions were not detailed in the minutes.

The chief justice’s refusal to join the Constitutional Bench was also noted in the records, though no explicit reason was given beyond adherence to constitutional procedure. Once the majority opinion was reached, both Justices Shah and Akhtar were informed of the decision and the reasoning behind it.