In an unprecedented development, a full court meeting of the Supreme Court (SC) has unanimously agreed to a resolution looking to extend as ad hoc judges for one more year Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday and Justice Rehmat Hussain Jaffery. For Justice Ramday this will be an almost unheard of second extension just as his retirement, once again, looms around the corner. The fact that there is an almost choked backlog of cases pending in the SC is the reported reason behind this move to take advantage of the many years of experience that come with veterans such as Justice Ramday and Justice Jaffery. This move, however, does not come without its detractors. Asma Jahangir, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), has voiced her reservations by claiming that such ad hoc appointments “stalemate” the judicial process on fresh appointments and can create a negative impression. Even Hamid Khan, a senior lawyer, has expressed opposition to the proposal. The SC is currently hearing a case pertaining to the widely reported Hajj scam where allegations are even reaching some of our political heavyweights. In regards to the case, the SC, only a few weeks back, admonished the police and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) for re-appointing retired senior officials in lucrative posts on contract. This, the SC claimed, blocked fresh appointments and disrupted due procedural ethics. The chief justice (CJ) himself said that favouritism should be brought to an end. Now, while constitutional provisions allow ad hoc judicial appointments, they cannot serve to dispel notions of partisanship and the very favouritism that the CJ is against. The principled stand taken by the CJ in the FIA’s reappointments was a positive example to set. Now, while the SC almost always takes responsible action and pays full heed to professional ethics, it must be wondered why it may not be following the same principles for itself that it lays down for other institutions. *