Petition filed in Lahore High Court over delay in establishing constitutional benches
A public interest litigation has been filed in the Lahore High Court (LHC) by Azhar Siddique, chairman of the Judicial Activism Panel, urging the immediate establishment of constitutional benches as mandated by Article 202A of the Constitution. The petition, filed against the federation and various law commissions, points out that despite the 26th Amendment in 2024, only the Sindh High Court has substantially implemented this framework. Constitutional benches have yet to be set up in the Lahore, Islamabad, Peshawar, and Balochistan High Courts.
The petitioner argues that the failure to establish these specialized benches creates an unequal system of justice, where litigants in Sindh have direct access to constitutional matters, while those in other provinces must still present their cases before ordinary benches. The petition also challenges the LHC's case-filing branch for raising preliminary objections on issues like maintainability and jurisdiction, asserting that these are judicial matters that should be decided by judges, not administrative staff. This practice is seen as an unconstitutional barrier to justice, violating several articles of the Constitution.
After submitting 14 representations to various authorities between November 2025 and June 2026 without a substantive response, the petitioner has sought extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The filing also highlights a severe judicial crisis, with 76 out of 200 sanctioned high court judge positions vacant nationwide, contributing to a massive backlog of 198,005 cases at the LHC alone. The petitioner seeks a directive for reasoned decisions on pending representations within 30 days, a declaration that vague communications are unconstitutional, and compliance reports for the swift implementation of Article 202A and the removal of administrative litigation barriers.
This legal challenge highlights a potential systemic contradiction between legislative intent and executive/judicial implementation concerning constitutional justice mechanisms. The petitioner's argument frames the delay in establishing specialized constitutional benches and the administrative screening of cases as significant impediments to equitable access to justice, particularly in light of substantial judicial vacancies and case backlogs. The core issue appears to be the tension between administrative efficiency, as potentially perceived by registry officials, and the constitutional right to have judicial matters adjudicated by judges. The situation suggests that understaffing and administrative overreach may be inadvertently creating procedural barriers that undermine substantive legal rights, prompting a need for clearer governance structures and judicial oversight to ensure constitutional mandates are met effectively and equitably across all high courts.
AI-generated to prompt reflection — not editorial opinion, not advice, not a statement of fact. How this works.