Law students move PHC against 26th Amendment

PESHAWAR: Law students from the University of Peshawar on Tuesday approached the Peshawar High Court (PHC) to challenge the 26th Constitutional Amendment made by the federal government.

The court issued notices to the relevant parties, seeking their response to the petition.The petitioners requested the court to declare the amendment null and void.A bench comprising Justice SM Atiq Shah and Justice Muddassir Ameer heard the petition filed by students, including Najeeb Ur Rehman and others, through their counsel, Suleman Khan Advocate.

The petition named the President of Pakistan, the chairman of the Senate, the speaker of the National Assembly, the federal secretary of Law, and others as respondents.According to the petition, the petitioners were students of Khyber Law College, University of Peshawar.

They argued that the 26th Constitutional Amendment, passed by Parliament on October 21, 2024, altered the fundamental structure of the Constitution.Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the petition contended that Parliament did not have the authority to change the basic framework of the Constitution.

The amendment, the petitioners claimed, was enacted to protect the incumbent government and curtail the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other judicial bodies, which they deemed an attack on judicial independence.

The petitioners asserted that a system of checks and balances was essential to prevent corruption and maintain a balance among the judiciary, legislature, and executive. They argued that weakening the judiciary would hinder the delivery of justice to citizens.

The petitioners emphasized that without an independent judiciary, the fundamental rights of the people cannot be safeguarded. The counsel for the petitioners stated that constitutional amendments cannot be made for personal gains.

He argued that the establishment of a parallel judicial authority within the courts through this amendment was unconstitutional and had created distrust among judges.He pointed out that the amendment had placed senior judges under the authority of their junior counterparts, which was an inappropriate measure.

Emphasizing the necessity of a checks-and-balances system to prevent the misuse of power, the counsel noted that the judiciary had the authority to strike down any unconstitutional or rights-violating legislation and to oversee executive actions. The petition requested the court to suspend the constitutional amendment until a final decision was reached, citing procedural irregularities and a lack of public consultation in its passage.