Supreme Court allows live streaming of reserved seats case

• Objections to bench composition dismissed by top court.
• Plea to hear 26th amendment first also rejected.
• Hearing on reserved seats case adjourned till Monday.

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench on Thursday allowed live streaming of proceedings in the reserved seats case, issuing directives to its IT department to make necessary arrangements.

The court announced a short order on multiple petitions filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), while rejecting several related pleas, including objections to the composition of the bench and the request to hear the 26th Constitutional Amendment case prior to the reserved seats case.

The Supreme Court also dismissed the plea seeking to defer the reserved seats hearing until after a decision on the 26th Amendment petitions. 

The court made it clear that the hearing would proceed as scheduled and adjourned the proceedings until Monday.

A detailed verdict will be released later, while the short order has already been pronounced in court.

Today's hearing

During the hearing on review petitions related to the reserved seats case at the Supreme Court, a larger bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan resumed proceedings.

Senior lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing women affected by the Supreme Court's 12 July verdict, completed his arguments on the objections raised by the SIC.

Makhdoom contended that Article 191-A and the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act override the application of the 1980 Rules in matters concerning the composition of benches.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked the counsel to specify which provisions of the 1980 Rules conflict with the new constitutional amendment.

In response, Makhdoom maintained that the 1980 Rules are inconsistent with the latest constitutional framework, particularly regarding the scope of review hearings.

He noted that the new constitutional amendment outlines the jurisdiction of the constitutional bench, whereas, under the 1980 Rules, review petitions were heard by the original bench.

He argued that after the 26th Amendment, cases involving constitutional interpretation must be reviewed by the Constitutional Bench.

Makhdoom further challenged the number of judges on the current bench, asserting that, in his view, it should be considered a 13-member bench, not 11. He said that in such a bench, a majority decision would require at least seven judges.

He also mentioned that a petition had been filed seeking live broadcast of the case and that the SIC had no objection should the court decide in favour of live streaming.

Another request was also submitted, asking the court to adjourn proceedings until a decision on the 26th Amendment is announced. However, Makhdoom Ali Khan stressed that it is the prerogative of the court—not any petitioner—to decide the scheduling of cases.

He warned that if the adjournment request were granted, the Constitutional Bench would be unable to hear any petitions until the 26th Amendment case is decided. This, he said, would set a precedent, encouraging other petitioners to make similar requests based on personal preferences.

SIC lawyer's apology

As the bench began to rise after Makhdoom concluded his arguments, SIC lawyer Faisal Siddiqi rushed forward, shouting whether the 26th Amendment had abolished the right to rebuttal.

Justice Aminuddin calmly said the court had heard him and advised submitting further points in writing. Siddiqi repeated his claim, prompting the judge to ask why he was attributing words the court hadn’t said.

Senior lawyer Makhdoom remarked that the Council had no legal standing and should not have been heard. Siddiqi angrily questioned why they were then made a party to the case.

Justice Mandokhail intervened, asking Siddiqi not to address senior counsel directly. Siddiqi apologised, requesting ten minutes to argue, warning of future complications.

Attorney General Mansoor Awan was seen smiling quietly during the exchange. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted the risk of endless proceedings if new judges kept leaving.

Later, Sunni Ittehad Council’s second lawyer Hamid Khan stressed that live streaming should continue, as it had during the first hearing, to avoid public doubts.

The bench rose for consultation and returned about 40 minutes later with a brief order. Justice Mandokhail told Siddiqi his behaviour was inappropriate, to which Siddiqi responded with an apology.