Finally behind the scene efforts became successful and the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday showed flexibility in its stance towards the federal government in a suo motu notice taken on the transfer of Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) officials investigating the Hajj corruption case, following the OSD (officer on special duty) issue. The SC cancelled its previous orders pertaining to the reinstatement of OSD Sohail Ahmed as the Establishment Secretary, and ordered the federal government to appoint Mr Ahmed to a position compatible with his stature. Undoubtedly, the judiciary has been gracious enough to let the executive off the hook as the imminent clash between the two state institutions could have led to harmful consequences. Better sense seems to have prevailed but it raises a few questions: why was the matter allowed to stretch to this extent? Why could it not be averted in the fist place? The clash between the executive and the judiciary heated up the political temperature as well and a war of words started among the political leaders, which only soured the situation further. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) warned the government of ensuing lawlessness while the ministers in Thursday’s cabinet meeting also showed harshness in their mood over the judiciary’s rigidity. Under our constitution, once a court passes an order, it becomes legally binding on both the executive and the judicial functionaries to abide by it. The executive made a mockery of the situation by constantly defying the court orders instead of filing a review petition. The apex court, too, on its part issued orders so hastily that their implementation caused problems to the bureaucracy. No doubt it is the prerogative of the executive to shuffle its bureaucratic staff, however, the way it reprimanded the officers for complying with the superior court’s orders is a proof of its resistance to the court’s directives. Both the institutions seemed to have locked horns over the issue. There were fears of a serious confrontation between the two, which could even have derailed democracy. There were reports that the government had decided to disobey the SC’s orders regarding the OSD issue and the draft of the prime minister’s speech planned for Monday on the floor of the National Assembly had such details that might have made matters worse. However, backchannel negotiations were activated in which former Minister for Law and Justice Babar Awan played an important role by convincing both the government and the judges of the SC to show restraint for the sake of the survival of the system. Such a standoff between the judiciary and the executive is not the first of its kind. On several occasions in the past, such problems have arisen between the two, bringing a bad name to their reputation. Issues like reopening of Swiss cases, the PCO judges and the appointment of judges to the higher courts are a few examples. At present, both the executive and the judiciary are enjoying their separate powers under the recently restored system of democracy. State institutions should not come face to face with each other and everyone should keep in mind that no institution can be run successfully if the other encroaches upon its democratic boundaries. They are interrelated yet bound to work within their limits as per the constitution. It is in the vital interest of democracy that both the institutions show restraint towards each other. It is hoped that the executive would implement the court’s orders in letter and spirit to avert the recurrence of such situations in the future.*