TLDR:
Chief Justice challenges 26th Amendment review
Judicial Commission debates its jurisdiction
Committee to determine case allocations
ISLAMABAD (The Thursday Times) — Chief Justice Yahya Afridi has clarified that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan has no authority to deliberate on the 26th Constitutional Amendment. According to the Chief Justice, matters concerning its challenges and hearings fall solely under the Constitutional Bench Committee’s jurisdiction, removing the Judicial Commission from the equation.
In a high-stakes meeting of the Judicial Commission, chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, key matters concerning the judiciary’s operational framework were discussed. The session reviewed judicial appointments to the high courts and the Supreme Court, alongside proposals to expand the constitutional benches at the apex court and Sindh High Court. However, the debate surrounding the 26th Amendment stole the spotlight.
Judicial commission debates constitutional jurisdiction
A proposal to convene a full court to hear challenges to the 26th Amendment was tabled but met resistance. Senior Supreme Court judge Mansoor Ali Shah suggested this route, citing the amendment’s broad implications and its need for deliberation by the full court. However, Chief Justice Afridi dismissed this suggestion, asserting that determining which cases are to be heard and how they should proceed is a matter for the Constitutional Bench Committee alone. The Judicial Commission, he reiterated, cannot and should not assume this responsibility.
While Justice Shah argued for an expedited review, highlighting constitutional provisions allowing full court hearings, his proposal failed to gain traction among the majority of commission members. Most attendees sided with Afridi, further solidifying his stance that the Judicial Commission’s role remains procedural, not interpretative.
Judicial appointments and operational changes
Beyond the amendment’s controversy, significant strides were made in judicial appointments. Justice Shahid Bilal Hasan was approved by majority vote as a Constitutional Bench judge, reflecting the commission’s efforts to strengthen high-level adjudication. However, decisions regarding additional judges for the four high courts were postponed until late December, delaying crucial placements in overburdened judicial systems.
The commission also authorised Afridi to establish a subcommittee to draft new rules, aiming to streamline judicial operations and address ambiguities that have long plagued the system. This move underscores the commission’s evolving focus on procedural efficiency over contentious constitutional matters.
Yahya Afridi consolidates authority within the judiciary
Chief Justice Afridi’s approach reflects a decisive shift in managing judicial power. By centralising case allocation authority within the Constitutional Bench Committee, he has effectively curtailed attempts to expand the Judicial Commission’s influence. His leadership signals a focus on institutional clarity, even amid growing internal challenges like Justice Shah’s insistence on revisiting the amendment’s implications.
Afridi’s stance reinforces a message of procedural discipline, ensuring that constitutional amendments remain within the legislative domain unless formally brought to judicial review. While this decision may face criticism from some quarters, it aligns with a broader effort to delineate judicial roles in an already complex system.