LHC moved over delay in setting up constitutional benches

LAHORE: A constitutional petition has been filed in the Lahore High Court (LHC) seeking the immediate operationalisation of constitutional benches under Article 202A of the Constitution.

The petition, filed by Azhar Siddique, chairman of the Judicial Activism Panel, a public interest litigation association, names the federation, the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, and the National Judicial (Policy-Making) Committee (NJPMC), among other federal and provincial authorities, as respondents.

The petitioner contends that despite the enactment of the 26th Amendment in 2024, constitutional benches have yet to be established in the Lahore, Islamabad, Peshawar, and Balochistan High Courts. To date, only the Sindh High Court has substantially implemented the framework envisaged under Article 202A. According to the petition, Article 202A uses mandatory language, stipulating that constitutional benches must be constituted and that only these specialised benches may exercise jurisdiction under Article 199.

The petitioner argues that the persistent failure to establish these benches has created an unequal, “two-track” system of constitutional justice. While litigants in Sindh have direct access to specialised constitutional benches, litigants in the rest of Pakistan must still have their constitutional cases heard by ordinary benches. Given the lack of any other effective or speedier remedy, the petitioner moved the LHC under its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction in the public interest.

The petition also challenges the long-standing practice of the LHC’s case-filing branch raising preliminary objections, such as maintainability, jurisdiction, locus standi, and the availability of alternative remedies, before a petition is formally heard. The petitioner argues that these are exclusively judicial questions that cannot legally be decided by administrative staff. Such administrative screening acts as an unconstitutional barrier to justice, violating Articles 4, 9, 10A, and 25 of the Constitution. Legal precedents from Pakistan, India, and the UK, alongside international principles on judicial independence, dictate that maintainability must always be decided by judges rather than registry officials.

Between November 2025 and June 2026, the petitioner submitted 14 detailed representations to the president, prime minister, provincial authorities, and the NJPMC requesting the implementation of Article 202A and filing reforms. However, no reasoned response was received, save for a solitary letter from the NJPMC forwarding one representation to the LHC Registrar.

The petition highlights a severe crisis in the judiciary, noting that 76 out of 200 sanctioned high court judges’ posts across Pakistan remain vacant. This understaffing has allegedly encouraged excessive administrative screening instead of proper judicial case management. The crisis is particularly acute at the LHC, which alone faces a backlog of 198,005 pending cases, accounting for roughly 56.8pc of all pending high court litigation nationwide.

Relief sought

The petitioner has prayed the court to direct the respondents to decide the pending representations through detailed, reasoned speaking orders within 30 days. Furthermore, the court is urged to declare that vague or non-speaking communications do not satisfy constitutional requirements.

Finally, the petition asks the court to order the respondents to submit compliance reports to ensure the swift implementation of Article 202A and the permanent removal of administrative barriers to litigation.

Published in Dawn, July 5th, 2026