ISLAMABAD  -  The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) on Monday raised formal objections to the composition of the 11-member Supreme Court bench currently hearing review petitions related to reserved seats. Appearing before the bench, Hamid Khan, representing the SIC, informed the court that he had submitted three applications, though the bench stated no such documents had been received. Faisal Siddiqui, another SIC counsel, objected to the bench’s makeup, arguing that a review must be heard by a bench of equal numerical strength to the original one (which had 13 judges) and two judges who previously dismissed the review should not have been excluded. Citing Supreme Court Rules, Siddiqui argued that precedent and legal convention require the same strength and composition for a review. However, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, who heads the current bench, clarified that the two judges voluntarily recused themselves and their dissenting notes would still be part of the final verdict. Justice Musarat Hilali questioned why the SIC wanted judges who had already withdrawn to rejoin the bench. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar highlighted that propriety dictates that recused judges cannot remain as passive observers. He also noted that Article 191A of the Constitution overrides the SC Rules under Article 185, giving the court discretion in forming benches. Siddiqui maintained that review petitions should follow SC Rules based on established conventions, but Justice Mandokhail questioned the Rules’ constitutional standing post-26th Amendment, adding that constitutional benches are formed per Article 191A through the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and the Committee. The court adjourned hearing until Tuesday (today), leaving the bench composition challenge unresolved.