From a nine-member panel that wrenchingly twisted through 3-2 and 4-3 split verdicts, the final arbiter has finally reached where it believed the constitution lay supreme. The gavel has boomed, and the election commission of Pakistan lose as the state is forced to carry out what the constitution asked: hold elections within 90 days. A verdict being celebrated by the PTI as a historic “watershed moment” by a court determined to walk away from the shadows of the notorious doctrine of necessity and let the due process take its course has, however, sparked great criticism from the government camp. Nothing gives a greater whiff of bloodied fracture lines than the country’s sitting prime minister’s blatant preference for contempt of court. With the federal cabinet already rejecting the decision as not “actionable,” it remains to be seen how the two iron pillars of a functioning democracy will settle their differences. That non-compliance would only set a terrible precedent–only to be used in the future whenever the going gets tough–does not need to be spelt out to anyone, especially seasoned hands playing the game for as long as one may remember. No matter what their reservations may be, the decision stands binding on the parties. Nevertheless, not all fault lies with the executive. By willingly treading on an incredible tightrope just for the sake of individualistic ambitions, the supreme court has doused the entire system in kerosene. All that’s needed now is a single spark for the threats to get ugly and power games to start rolling. This absolute chaos could have been easily avoided using the consensus buzzword. The exclusion of dissenting judges and reluctance in forming a full court reveals a little too much about the integrity of the court than it would have liked to see under the microscope. Intentions cannot justify the means. Coming to the right conclusion using whatsoever route possible is just another (elaborate) nametag to plaster upon the dreaded necessity. To borrow from the greatest wordsmith of the English language, William Shakespeare, “What’s in a name?” *