Meeting on June 19 to consider extending six-month terms amid questions over bench performance
The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, is set to convene a critical meeting on June 19 at the Supreme Court. The primary agenda item is the extension of the tenure of the Supreme Court’s constitutional benches (CBs).
The last time this issue was taken up was on December 21, 2024, when the commission approved a six-month extension for judges nominated to the constitutional benches by majority vote.
Currently, 15 judges are serving on the CBs. A committee—comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan (who also heads the CBs), Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Justice Ali Mazhar—oversees the selection of judges for these benches.
Performance Scrutiny
Despite the intended purpose of the constitutional benches—created through the 26th Constitutional Amendment to enhance constitutional interpretation—criticism is mounting over their output. Since their formation, the CBs have issued only three reported judgments.
The first was a brief, two-page verdict issued in January, addressing the jurisdiction of the CBs themselves. It ruled that regular benches of the Supreme Court are not empowered to hear cases involving constitutional interpretation.
The second was a short order in the case regarding military courts, while the third, authored by Justice Mandokhail, also received limited public attention.
Legal observers have voiced concerns over the CBs’ effectiveness and impartiality. One prominent lawyer questioned why Justice Mandokhail has not been entrusted with leading an independent constitutional bench, despite his involvement.
According to the lawyer, the CB initially spent two months sidestepping the pivotal 26th Amendment case, focusing instead on inconsequential and already obsolete cases. This was followed by four months dedicated almost exclusively to the military courts case, culminating in a verdict that appeared to align with establishment interests.
“During this period,” he added, “the bench passed only one other significant order, effectively barring regular Supreme Court benches from hearing any critical constitutional matters.”
He also criticized the handling of the reserved seats review case, noting that many of the original judges were excluded, and those included seemed to shift positions inexplicably.
The concept of a constitutional bench selected with political input was controversial from the start, with critics warning it could undermine judicial independence and damage the Supreme Court’s credibility. “Sadly,” the lawyer remarked, “the CB’s performance so far has only validated those concerns.”
He further noted that the CBs were originally justified as a way to improve constitutional jurisprudence. “Yet in six months, they’ve issued barely a handful of substantive judgments—many of which have reversed progress and aligned more closely with establishment preferences,” he said.
