ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed live streaming of proceedings in scores of petitions challenging the validity of the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
An eight-member Constitutional Bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard after a gap of nine months, over two dozen petitions challenging the validity of 26th Constitutional Amendment. Other members of the bench were Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), as well as various Bar Associations and former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), had challenged the amendment.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners, including Hamid Khan and Faisal Siddiqui, requested the formation of a Full Court bench to hear the case.
It is pertinent to mention that the Constitutional Bench, on January 27, had issued notices to the parties in the petitions against the 26th Amendment on the pleas seeking live streaming of the proceedings as well as constitution of a Full Court to hear the matter.
The court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners stressing live streaming of the proceedings, took a short break and later assembled announcing a unanimous decision allowing live streaming of hearing of the petitions.
“We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the additional attorney general and unanimously accepted the request made by the petitioners seeking live streaming of the matter in hand,” Justice Aminuddin Khan announced in a short order.
The judge remarked that things have to be managed, adding that they are all serving the nation. Similarly, Justice Mandokhail remarked that it’s a big case, and they will pursue it in an organised manner.
Earlier, at the start of the hearing, Shahid Jameel, counsel for former Senator Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, informed the court they had filed an application seeking constitution of a Full Court for hearing the petitions; however, the Registrar office had raised objections over their petition.
The counsel further told the court that he has also filed a Chamber appeal against the objections and requested the bench to first decide his client’s appeal. Similarly, he submitted that his client had also raised objections over the Constitutional Bench hence he requested that the court should also hear this matter along with the other petitioners.
Meanwhile, after consultations the bench issued direction for allotting number to Khokhar’s petition.
During the hearing, Khawaja Hussain Ahmed, counsel for petitioner Afrasiab Khattak, also requested the court to approve live streaming of the entire proceedings.
Justice Aminuddin, however, responded to the counsel that notices have already been issued on both applications received in this regard, and explained that if objections are raised to the bench, another bench will hear them, but if there are no objections, the same bench will hear the live streaming applications.
He further remarked that the court would first decide on the request for the formation of a Full Court and afterward review the live streaming applications.
Khawaja Hussain responded that the entire nation wants to see what is happening in the Supreme Court regarding the 26th Amendment petitions. Justice Mandokhail remarked that our problem is that we misuse everything. “The Supreme Court wanted to use live streaming as an educational tool, but it ended up exposing us instead,” Justice Mandokhail remarked and told the counsel in a lighter note that if he got the relief, he should not misuse it.
Meanwhile, Faisal Siddiqui, counsel for another petitioner, also appeared before the court through video link from Karachi Registry and informed the court about his applications filed for requesting live streaming of the proceedings.
Justice Aminuddin asked the counsel that they had already stated that all the counsels for the petitioners must come to Islamabad for hearing. “We are not your enemy and we will listen to you and we should respect each other as well,” Justice Mandokhail told Faisal Siddiqui. “How can one be upset by your lordship’s smile,” Siddiqui responded.
At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the Khyber Pukhtunkhwa (KP) government told the court that they have no objection to any member of the bench but they want that a Full Court must be constituted for hearing these petitions.
Meanwhile, Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed, counsel for Akhtar Mengal, while arguing before the court, submitted that the entire proceedings should be conducted through live streaming, adding that Article 19-A of the Constitution ensures that every citizen of the country must have access to information on public importance.
He contended that the 26th Amendment was passed in haste and darkness without holding a debate of all stakeholders. He further submitted that when the amendment was approved in darkness, then at least the proceedings on the pleas, filed against it should be held in a transparent manner and through live streaming so that the whole nation should watch it.
Justifying his stance for live streaming of the proceedings of the petitions, Salahuddin Ahmed recalled that the Supreme Court had conducted live telecast of a case of former Islamabad High Court judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, Bhutto Reference case, Islamabad Wildlife case including Monal restaurant, F-9 Park trees case, Election symbol’s case as well as Sunni Ittehad Council’s case in reserved seats matter.
“This case attains much of public importance hence it must be live broadcasted as well as a Full Court must be constituted for hearing the petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment,” Salahuddin Ahmed contended.
During the hearing, Shahbaz Khan Khosa also appeared before the court and submitted that he will be representing former SCBA presidents, adding that he had also filed CMAs seeking live streaming as well as constitution of a Full Court for hearing the identical petitions.
Meanwhile, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Aamir Rehman, when appeared before the bench, Justice Ayesha asked for the federal government’s position on live streaming — whether it should be allowed or not.
Rehman replied that allowing or disallowing live streaming is an administrative matter hence it should not be decided at the judicial side.
In this respect he cited Supreme Court judgment PLD 2023 and referred to page 685 wherein it was mentioned that such nature of issues should be decided at the administrative side but not at judicial side.
Justice Mazhar observed that this means whatever the bench decides, everyone agrees to it.
“Whether you accept the stance of the petitioners seeking live streaming of the proceedings or not,” Justice Ayesha asked the AAG. Rehman replied that the stance of the federal government is reflected in the SC judgement.
Meanwhile, the court took a short break for consultation on the request and later announced that the petitions seeking live streaming were accepted unanimously. The court then adjourned the hearing for today (Wednesday) at 11:30 am wherein the court will hear the pleas regarding objections raised on the bench.
Justice Aminuddin asked all the counsels for the petitioners to decide as to who will first argue on the matter. “Who will be the opening batsman?” Justice Mazhar asked in a lighter tone.
