Published on: September 5, 2025 3:34 AM
The Tehreek Tahaffuz-e-Ain Vice Chairman, Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, has petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking implementation of a majority decision by the Supreme Court (SC), (Practice and Procedure) Act Committee (PAPA) to fix petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment before a full court. The committee, by a 2-1 majority on October 31, 2023, directed the SC Registrar to list the petitions on 4 November. However, the cases were not scheduled for hearing.
Through counsel Shahid Jamil Khan, Khokhar filed the petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, arguing that the committee’s decision remains lawful, valid and binding.
He contended that neither the Registrar nor any administrative authority has the competence to disregard a lawful order of the committee.
The petition asserted that judicial independence is a foundational constitutional principle, and deviation undermines rule of law, fair trial and due process under Articles 4, 9, 10A and 25. It further stated that reasons cited by the Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, including informal consultations and jurisdictional objections, carry no legal basis to override the committee’s formal decision under statutory mandate.
Khokhar argued that non-compliance with the committee’s order amounts to administrative impropriety, frustrates legislative intent, and undermines the collective authority of the SC, violating transparency, collegiality and institutional integrity.
The refusal to implement the order, the petition added, deprives stakeholders of their right to fair hearing and timely adjudication of constitutional challenges, infringing Articles 4, 10A and 25.
Earlier, CJP Afridi faced criticism after SC committee minutes revealed he ignored a majority decision to form a full court on petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
In October 2023, Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar, by 2-1, directed the registrar to fix hearings before a full court on November 4.
CJP argued the committee lacked authority and instead consulted judges individually, with nine supporting a constitutional bench.
Lawyers questioned the CJP’s move, calling the informal polling of judges unlawful and a violation of the committee’s binding decision. Critics said avoiding a full court undermined transparency and judicial independence.
