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, arguing that the continued delay has created unequal access to constitutional justice across the country.
The petition was filed by Azhar Siddique, chairman of the Judicial Activism Panel, a public interest litigation association. It names the federation, the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, the National Judicial (Policy-Making) Committee (NJPMC), along with other federal and provincial authorities, as respondents.
According to the petition, despite the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment in 2024, constitutional benches have yet to be established in the Lahore, Islamabad, Peshawar and Balochistan high courts. It states that only the Sindh High Court has substantially implemented the framework envisioned under Article 202A.
The petitioner argues that Article 202A uses mandatory language requiring constitutional benches to be constituted and stipulates that only these specialised benches may exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.
The petition contends that the failure to establish constitutional benches has resulted in a “two-track” system of constitutional justice. While litigants in Sindh have access to specialised constitutional benches, those in the rest of Pakistan continue to have their constitutional cases heard by ordinary benches. Claiming that no other effective or speedy remedy is available, the petitioner approached 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 of raising preliminary objections—such as maintainability, jurisdiction, locus standi and the availability of alternative remedies—before petitions are formally heard by the court.
According to the petitioner, these issues are exclusively judicial questions that cannot legally be determined by administrative staff. The petition argues that such administrative screening creates an unconstitutional barrier to justice and violates Articles 4, 9, 10A and 25 of the Constitution. It further cites legal precedents from Pakistan, India and the United Kingdom, as well as international principles on judicial independence, to argue that questions of maintainability must always be decided by judges rather than registry officials.
The petitioner states that between November 2025 and June 2026, he submitted 14 detailed representations to the president, prime minister, provincial authorities and the NJPMC, requesting implementation of Article 202A and reforms to the filing process. However, no reasoned response was received, except for a single letter from the NJPMC forwarding one of the representations to the LHC registrar.
The petition further highlights what it describes as a serious judicial crisis, noting that 76 of the 200 sanctioned high court judges’ positions across Pakistan remain vacant. It argues that the shortage of judges has encouraged excessive administrative screening instead of proper judicial case management.
The petition says the situation is particularly severe at the Lahore High Court, where 198,005 cases are currently pending, accounting for approximately 56.8 per cent of all pending high court litigation in the country.
Relief sought
The petitioner has requested the court to direct the respondents to decide the pending representations through detailed and reasoned speaking orders within 30 days. It also asks the court to declare that vague or non-speaking communications do not fulfil constitutional requirements.
Finally, the petition seeks directions requiring the respondents to submit compliance reports to ensure the prompt implementation of Article 202A and the permanent removal of administrative barriers to constitutional litigation.