There could not have been a more perfect storm of crisis pounding at Pakistan’s front door. After economic, political and security fires, an extraordinary controversy pitting the chief justice against his brother judges has hit the news cycle; suggesting the addition of yet another train wreck to the debilitating mix. Challenging the “solitary decisions of one man,” the dissenting judges have managed to poke holes in the Supreme Court’s ruling on elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa while successfully raising doubts about the “abuse of power” merrily tapping into the offing. That the last two decades have seen the higher judiciary step out of its arbitrary shadows and enthusiastically flex authority to oppose and undermine every other institution in the country remains an irrefutable fact. Ambitious suo moto notices became a distinct part of the judicial character where personal preferences sought to leave a lasting impact. However, just as worrisome has been the extension of this high-handed sense of entitlement to its own housekeeping, the latest of which revolved around the disputed constitution of benches. Though unanticipated (never before has the practice been scathingly questioned), remarks by Justices Shah and Mandokhail could not have arrived at a more opportune time. On Tuesday, the National Assembly deliberated upon a bill to revisit powers against suo moto engineering and unilateral bench-fixing on issues supposedly “do(ing) nothing to add to the Supreme Court’s sanctity.” And while legal eagless rushed to claim their side of the divide, they too could not deny the grave implications of sitting on this ever-so-important fence for any longer. Had there been a consensus in the higher judiciary, the court could have oiled the reform machinery itself, especially in the light of Chief Justice Khosa’s proposal to regulate suo moto powers. But populism had won back then, and the urge to stay relevant is highly likely to supersede, even today. An independent, incorruptible judiciary is the only safeguard against the forces determined to shred apart the constitution. Lofty goals aside, it, too, needs to keep up squeaky-clean appearances to enjoy the confidence of the common man. Law-centred perspective in light of the constitution and only constitution should be the raison d’être. *