More than four months since his training, the constitutional bench has not yet rendered decisions on any critical case, which raises concerns concerning judicial inertia.
On November 4, 2024, the Pakistan Judicial Commission (JCP) appointed eight judges for the constitutional bench by a majority vote, the members supported by the government playing a decisive role in the selection.
The bench, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan, was to be widely provided for on the civil trials in the military courts. However, although it has made it possible for military courts to issue verdicts in the cases related to the incidents of May 9, the bench has not yet concluded the procedure – despite 46 hearings.
The case is expected to resume next month, the lawyer for the Ministry of Defense, Khawaja Haris, declaring that he demanded at least eight additional hearings to complete his refutation.
In addition, the constitutional bench was also unable to resume two other crucial cases due to prolonged hearings in the military court case.
In January, a bench led by judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah raised the question of whether a regular bench could be prohibited from making hearing questions related to the interpretation of the law and the constitution.
Subsequently, the Committee of Constitutional benches provided hearings for petitions contesting on January 26 on January 28.
However, the constitutional bench of eight members led a single audience before adjourning it for three weeks. More than 50 days have passed since then and the case has not yet been planned for new procedures.
Likewise, another key case remains pending, the dispute concerning the seniority of the judges of the High Court of Islamabad (CIH).
Five IHC judges challenged the transfer of three judges of different high lessons to the IHC. They asked for the Supreme Court, seeking to recover their seniority, which was modified as a result of transfers.
The dispute revolves particularly around the Sarfraz Dogar judge of the High Court of Lahore (LHC), who became the senior then judge, replacing judge Mohin Akhtar Kayani.
The petitioners argue that the seniority of the transferred judges should only be determined after having taken an oath. Several bars associations have also challenged these transfers and PTI has filed a constitutional petition on the same question.
Although these petitions have been allocated, they have not yet been planned for hearings.
Legal experts believe that the maintenance of the status quo in these crucial cases plays in the hands of the executive.
Military courts have already rendered the judgment and the accused are now serving their sentence – a closed case, at least for the moment.
Meanwhile, the 26th amendment deploying without hook, the government saw no urgent need to stir the pot.
Likewise, the Government Plan for the IHC takes place without wrinkle. Judge Sardar Sarfraz Dogar holds the fort as a chief judge of the IHC, and unlike the past, the administration does not come up against the roadblocks on this front.
The Karachi Bar Association, through the lawyer Faisal Siddiqi, also disputed the transfer of the three judges to the IHC.
The 26th amendment constitutes an exclusive authority in the constitutional bench to interpret the law and the constitution, preventing the regular benches from exercising its competence in this regard.
However, the constitutional bench has not yet weighed on any legal point since November of last year, with concerns being that it was high time that the bench established case law in questions of public interest.
Experts argued that to curb the overtaking, the constitutional bench must draw clear lines for the exercise of the competence of public interest under article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
