By most accounts, 2024 was not a good year for Pakistan – marked by a rise in terrorist activities and persistent political instability.

However, if one were to ask lawyers about the most significant takeaway of the year, many would point to the near year-end event of October when the 26th Amendment was incorporated into Pakistan’s constitution. This amendment profoundly altered the structure and framework of the Supreme Court and high courts, introducing monumental changes to the judicial system. These changes were so significant that courts, judges, and lawyers seemed utterly unprepared for them, even to this day.

One clear example of this is how a long-standing belief among lawyers – that the senior-most judge should be the chief justice – was directly challenged. The amendment paved the way for blocking Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s path, appointing Justice Yahya Afridi as the chief justice of Pakistan instead. This appointment was orchestrated by a 12-member parliamentary committee. While most lawyers expected a massive backlash within the Supreme Court, the reaction was far more muted than anticipated. Nonetheless, the effects and aftershocks of the 26th Amendment continue to reverberate throughout the judicial system, creating complexities that remain unresolved.

Such disruptions illustrate why many lawyers have chosen to challenge the 26th Amendment. Numerous challenges remain pending in the Supreme Court, while others have questioned the jurisdiction of high courts. I, too, approached the Sindh High Court on behalf of members of the Sindh Bar Council. The petition was admitted for hearing, and notices were duly issued. Subsequently, in the Attock Cement case, the Sindh High Court ruled that the power to issue declarations does not lie with the constitutional bench. Instead, determining whether legislation is constitutional falls under the jurisdiction of the regular bench. This, as can be seen, is a tug of war.

If I were to recount my........

© The News International