ISLAMABAD: As many as 28 women attorneys of different district and high courts approached the Supreme Court on Monday to seek a declaration that the was ‘procedurally defective’ since parliamentarians cast their votes in favour of the constitutional package or coercion or unlawful inducement. The , drafted by Advocate Zainab Janjua, requested the SC to strike down the 26th amendment on the basis that the requisite two-thirds majority was allegedly not obtained lawfully. Other petitioners included Imaan Mazari-Hazir, Rida Hosain, Maryam Khan, Syeda Khushbakht Shah and Angbeen Atif Mirza. The SC was informed that the petitioners were female lawyers having licence to practise in the district and high courts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and Islamabad. Seek judicial probe into ‘procedural defects’ in legislation The petitioners have been “directly aggrieved” by the 26th amendment, because it affects access to justice, and the independence of the judiciary, and therefore impacts all citizens of Pakistan. The petition requested the apex court to constitute a full-court bench to hear the matter and dispense justice. The SC was further urged to appoint a judicial commission to hold an inquiry into the procedure and declare that no constitutional amendment could lawfully be passed when the Senate lacks representation of one province. The petition urged the SC to declare that sections 7, 14, 17, and 21 of the 26th constitutional amendment “abrogate, repeal and destroy” the salient features of the Constitution and therefore strike it down. The top court was further requested to set aside any action taken by the respondents including the federal and provincial government representatives or other person of authority in pursuance of the 26th amendment. They argued their joint petition was maintainable under Article 184(3), adding the threshold required for filing such a petition was satisfied as it not only concerns public importance but also deals with the enforcement of fundamental rights. Challenging the vires of the 26th amendment in its entirety on the basis of procedural grounds, the petitioners alleged the two-thirds majority was obtained by votes under duress, as certain parliamentarians did not freely exercise their right to vote according to their conscience. The petitioners mentioned that two Balochistan National Party (BNP) senators and voted against party lines, while the 26th amendment was passed by 65 votes, one more vote than the required two-thirds majority, in Senate. Had it not been for the defecting votes of the two BNP senators, there would be no two-thirds majority, the petitioners said, adding it was crucial to find and ascertain whether votes in favour of the 26th amendment had been voluntarily cast. They demanded that this inquiry could be undertaken through a judicial commission of sitting Supreme Court judges or by this court itself sitting in its original jurisdiction.