Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar on Thursday asserted no constitutional amendment enacted by Parliament with a two-thirds majority can be challenged in any court, as senior politician Afrasiab Khattak sought an inquiry to determine whether the two-thirds majority was secured voluntarily or through unlawful inducement.
Speaking with Geo News on reports of various groups vowing to challenge the 26th constitutional amendment, he said Article 239 of the Constitution clearly empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution or carry out legislation with a two-thirds majority. “Its clause 5 clearly states that the amendments to the Constitution of Pakistan cannot be challenged in any court,” he said.
According to Article 239(5), “no amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever.” The minister also referred to clause 6, which states: “For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that there is no limitation whatever on the power of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution.”
He further noted that following the establishment of constitutional benches, any petition seeking the interpretation of the Constitution or revocation of any amendment—“which isn’t possible under Article 239”—would be heard by a constitutional bench constituted by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan.
Earlier, veteran politician Khattak filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking an inquiry into alleged inducement of lawmakers to pass the 26th constitutional amendment, adding the case should be heard by a full court and not the constitutional bench, as they could not lawfully adjudicate on a matter pertaining to them.
The petition urges the court to declare that no amendment to the Constitution can be considered valid if there are pending election disputes. It also urged the apex court to strike down the entire amendment on the grounds of procedural impropriety if it were confirmed that the requisite two-thirds majority was not obtained through lawmakers’ right to vote without fear or compulsion.
Alternatively, the petition called for the striking down of provisions related to the judiciary, arguing they undermined the independence of the judiciary. As a consequence, it asserted, the original Article 175A(3) of the Constitution would become operational and require the notification of the senior-most judge as the CJP.