The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that benches are constituted in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and not on personal preferences, as it heard petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

An eight-member Constitutional Bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan took up the case in Islamabad.

During the hearing, petitioner’s counsel Uzair Bhandari argued that the previous 16-member full court should be restored or a new full court comprising all 24 judges of the Supreme Court should be formed.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned whether the committee formed on October 31, 2024, had the authority to make such a decision, and whether it acted in line with the Constitution and the law.

Justice Aminuddin remarked that such an order could not be passed without suspending Article 191A, while Justice Musarrat Hilali asked whether one constitutional bench had the authority to constitute another bench.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail emphasised that court benches are not formed based on wishes but strictly according to the Constitution and the law.

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan asked why the petitioners lacked confidence in the current constitutional bench.

The counsel argued that the constitutional amendment did not include any provision allowing the Judicial Commission to “pick and choose” nominees for judges.

At this point, Justice Ayesha Malik remarked that if only judges nominated under Article 191A could hear constitutional cases, the Supreme Court’s power of adjudication would effectively be transferred to the Judicial Commission.

The court adjourned the hearing until November 10, stating that proceedings would resume subject to the availability of the bench.