With the dissenting verdict in the reserved seat ruling, the scenario raises numerous critical questions: How long will it take until the majority decision is released? Is there a time frame stipulated in the law? Does the court have absolute discretion over when to issue the detailed judgment? Is anyone aware of the anomalies linked with this delay? Paragraph 5 of the dissenting verdict says: The detailed majority judgment has not yet come to the surface, despite the expiry of the 15 days mentioned therein. The delay may render infructuous, the review petition filed against the court’s order. Therefore, based on the short order we have been compelled to record our findings. It has been said that the request for review cannot be considered until a detailed judgment is issued, in addition to the fact that the complete judgment has not yet been made public and all we have is a short order. This questions whether there is any way to penalize one of the parties for the lengthy delay in issuing the detailed decision. For instance, there is a 15-day timeframe to implement this decision. However, if the review is not heard within this timeframe, it becomes ineffective. This begs the question of whether, for purely technical reasons, one of the parties should give up its right to be heard. Furthermore, if the review petition cannot be considered until a detailed decision is made, should the implementation of the decision also be put on hold until the detailed verdict is announced? Again, if the time frame for the implementation of short order can be given, shouldn’t there be one for the detailed judgment as well? This is a catastrophic scenario, with speculations of a possible constitutional breakdown. Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to issue a detailed judgment instead of a short order? Deep-time thinking is required. Cracks in our jurisprudence lay bare. It qualifies to be treated as a matter of public interest under article 184(3). Perhaps this is the best case ever to be dealt with under this provision of the constitution. Our jurisprudence is sinking into depth. The bar should not be set that low. The previous year, a short order was issued in the presidential reference concerning the Riko Diq case. Following this, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Omar Ata Bandial retired. However, the comprehensive and detailed judgment for this case is still pending. The question is: who will write this detailed judgment now? Can we ask a retired judge to write the detailed reasoning for the short decisions he made earlier while in office? In 2007, the government was instructed to develop regulations under the Qisaas-o- Diyyat law by a seven-member court presided over by former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. The bench also mandated the creation of a debt fund to offer low-interest loans to impoverished inmates to assist them in paying their diyyat. Many issues were raised about the decision’s legitimacy in light of Sharia and the constitution. The government found out that the detailed ruling was still awaited and that it would have to wait before submitting a revision petition. This period of waiting lasted. It was imperative for the government to put forward ordinances, enact laws, establish regulations, and institute a fund to facilitate low-interest loans. However, the detailed decision was still pending when Iftikhar Chaudhry was removed from office. He was later restored and retired, but the detailed verdict is still awaited. Once more, who is going to write this detailed judgment now? Will it ever be written? Will there always be a bar on revision in these cases? The conundrum is: where to go from here? How to come out of this gusher? Our jurisprudence is sinking into depth. The bar should not be set that low. The court vacations should also be considered by the Parliament. This custom dates back to the British colonial era, when they took the position of Muslim judges. The subcontinent’s wet weather was troublesome for these British judges, so they recommended summer vacations. The current situation differs in that the judges are locals who are familiar with the local weather. In addition, air conditioning and other contemporary conveniences have increased work comfort in courts at the cost of the national exchequer. I’m curious to know if the Chief Justice of Pakistan has the authority to address and correct this practice, or if new legislation is needed to eliminate this lingering residue of colonial rule. The writer is a lawyer and author based in Islamabad. He tweets @m_asifmahmood.