Supreme Court Allows Live Streaming of Historic 26th Amendment Hearing

An eight-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has approved live streaming of court proceedings in the landmark 26th Amendment case. The decision came during Tuesday’s hearing of multiple petitions challenging the constitutional changes introduced through the amendment.

The 26th Amendment, passed by both houses of parliament in October 2024, reshaped judicial powers, tenure rules, and the appointment process for the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP). Legal experts and political parties have strongly debated its implications, particularly its impact on judicial independence.

Key Changes Introduced by the 26th Amendment

The 26th Amendment brought several major constitutional changes:

• Suo motu powers of the Supreme Court were removed.

• The CJP’s tenure was fixed at three years.

• The prime minister gained the authority to appoint the next CJP from among the three most senior judges.

• It enabled the formation of a Constitutional Bench, which is now hearing challenges against the very amendment that created it.

These changes have been challenged by bar associations, the PTI, and other stakeholders who argue that the amendment undermines judicial autonomy.

Hearing Highlights: Bench Composition and Key Discussions

The Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, includes Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan.

The bench resumed hearings on October 7, after the last session held on January 27. Three main issues were addressed:

1. Request for a Full Court to hear the petitions.

2. Objections to the Constitutional Bench.

3. Live streaming of the proceedings.

Justice Aminuddin Khan clarified that the court would first hear arguments on the full court request and later decide on live streaming. However, several lawyers, including Khawaja Ahmad Hassan, argued that the public has a right to be informed, demanding that the arguments for a full court hearing be broadcast live.

Lawyers Advocate for Public Access

During the session, multiple lawyers argued for greater transparency:

• Shahid Jameel, representing Tehreek-i-Tahaffuz Ayeen-i-Pakistan Vice Chairperson Mustafa Khokhar, highlighted objections raised by the SC registrar and pushed for a full court.

• Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed emphasized the public’s right to information, criticizing the lack of public debate around the 26th Amendment and recalling that the amendment was passed “in the darkness of the night.”

• He urged that the proceedings should be live-streamed for public viewing, referencing past live streams such as the Zulfikar Bhutto case and the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act hearing.

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan responded with a light remark, asking whether live streaming was also needed “apart from broad daylight proceedings.” Ahmed replied that since the amendment was passed secretly, public transparency is essential.

Court Reserves, Then Approves Live Streaming Decision

The bench initially reserved its decision on live streaming but later approved the requests to broadcast the proceedings, ensuring real-time public access.

Justice Ayesha Malik asked the Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman for the government’s stance, to which he responded that it was an administrative matter. When Justice Mazhar questioned further, Rehman confirmed the government would follow whatever the bench decides.

The court then adjourned the hearing to 11:30 AM on Wednesday.

Petitions: Grounds for Challenging the 26th Amendment

The petitioners have urged the apex court to strike down the entire amendment for procedural impropriety, arguing that:

• Two-thirds majority votes were not freely exercised as required under Article 239.

• Specific provisions undermine judicial independence, including amendments to Article 175A, performance evaluation clauses, and the appointment process of the CJP.

• The original Article 175A(3) should be restored, and the senior-most judge should be appointed as CJP.

• All related amendments, including the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2024 and the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) (Amendment) Act 2024, should be declared unconstitutional and void.

They also demanded a full court hearing instead of an eight-member bench established under the contested amendment.

CJP Afridi’s Earlier Decision and Lost Opportunity

Between January and August 2025, multiple calls were made for a full court. On August 14, Chief Justice Yahya Afridi explained why he rejected a committee’s earlier decision (from Oct 31, 2024) to bring the case before the entire Supreme Court.

Afridi argued that a full court might undermine judicial collegiality and expose the court to public controversy.

Later, Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar issued a joint letter stating that the Supreme Court lost a “golden opportunity” to decide the case at the earliest before a full bench.

Why This Case Matters

The 26th Amendment case has been dubbed the “constitutional case of the century”, with far-reaching implications for judicial independence, separation of powers, and constitutional governance in Pakistan.

By approving live streaming, the Supreme Court has opened its doors to public scrutiny, allowing citizens to witness a defining constitutional moment in real time.