Sir: It is the first time in the history of Pakistan that a civilian government has been toppled by the Supreme Court’s short order on the petitions of the PML-N and PTI leaders challenging the May 24 ruling of the Speaker of the National Assembly on the issue of PM Gilani’s conviction in the contempt of court case. The court observed that the speaker has no authority to find faults in the apex court judgment and should have sent the disqualification reference to the Election Commission of Pakistan within 30 days. The Court’s verdict has raised many questions. What will happen if the new PM also refuses to write the letter to the Swiss authorities against the president? Why was the court interested in deciding a case with political repercussions on a fast track basis by having day-to-day proceedings despite objection from the attorney general of Pakistan and the defence counsel? Why has the power of disqualification of the NA members representing the will of the people been claimed by a judicial institution? What if the PPP with a two-thirds majority amends the constitution, removes Article 63(a) from the constitution, and bars the Supreme Court’s ability to use suo motu powers? Why is the SC not dealing with petitions that are pending for decades such as the Asghar Khan petition number 10 relating to intelligence agencies paying money to politicians? Why are the present judges keener on taking up corruption cases related to the PPP government as opposed to the PML-N? The confrontation between the judiciary and the executive is not in the country’s interest. The judiciary must project that it is independent and unbiased. Why is the apex court playing the role of both the executive and the legislature? Why did the seven-member bench that ruled on the verdict of the contempt case on April 26 not clearly order the disqualification of the PM? Why was the matter sent to the speaker of the NA if her decision was to be overruled? S T Hussain Chief Executive Consumer Awareness and Welfare Association