A modern democratic state is built on the principle of Trichotomy of powers, i.e. judiciary, executive and legislature. These pillars of state have to perform their own intended functions. On papers, these masts of power should perform their distinct duties dispensed by constitution and their duties should not overlap. However, it has been observed that even in developed polities, the functioning of the legislature and executive leave a lot of space for judiciary to step in. The reason being instead of vigilant and performing check on executives’ discretionary powers, the legislature befits its hand-maiden. To fill the vacuum ensuing from this legislative-executive concession, the judiciary has to aver to offer relief to subjects. Like many polities, Clash of institutions in Pakistan is not an unfamiliar thing. Often this clash is seen between courts and parliament. Media and politicians show indignation toward courts for its judicial Activism. Parliamentarians complain that top courts transgress its limits by restricting the powers of parliament while courts assert so is done because those in the corridors of power aren’t discharging their duties of providing relief to people. This situation leads to judicial Activism. For the first time in the history of Pakistan, judicial Activism was witnessed when the popular and celebrated chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary was restored to the post of chief justice of Pakistan. He took on the then government on every issue and Suomoto actions became a routine in Pakistan those days. Even Prime Minister was disqualified in contempt of court by Supreme Court. Today, many political pandits say that Supreme Court has embarked upon the second phase of Judicial Activism by undertaking Panama case. However, many are of the view that apex courts are always pushed toward what is called judicial Activism due to ineptitude of other institutions to adequately solve the issue. Following points will elucidate how courts are hard-pressed towards interfering in the affairs of other institutions: As of Panama Scandal, PM sharif faces the opposition’s ire over allegations of graft in the panama papers leaks. In parliament the ruling and opposition parties failed to solve the issue of investigating the PM with consensus. The Terms Of References ( TORs) given by Government were tilted towards favoring PM while those formulated by the opposition were termed too biased against PM to accept. Even the main opposition parties – Pakistan Tehreek-e- Insaf(PTI) and Pakistan peoples party(PPP) had different TORs and mistrusted each other. As a result the country was indulged into political chaos and uncertainty when PTI started working on its plan of seizing the capital. At last, the court had to intrude to take the issue. The performance of executive pillar of state in Pakistan has always been abysmal. For example, NAB and other organs of accountability institutions have touched the lowest ebb during current and preceding governments. So much so that the bench of supreme court judges commented during Panama case that NAB died before us yesterday. Had these institutions acted appropriately, half of the cases would have been solved before reaching the courts. The case of missing persons was valiantly undertaken by Supreme Court during preceding government. Apparently, the security agencies and the legislature failed to protect the fundamental rights of people of a province. Then Supreme Court not only questioned the powers of army-led military establishment but also inquired into the intelligence agencies political machinations. As a result many a missing person were produced in court by security agencies. Another factor which pushes towards Judicial Activism is our perennial problem of civil-military distrust. One is alarmed at just how deep the distrust between civilian law-enforcement and intelligence and the military is. At times, the civilian sphere echoes views of the establishment’s intention not much different from what one hears in the most critical quarters of the western world. The military, on its part, not only finds these views exaggerated and misinformed, but tends to see its civilian counterparts as apathetic and worthless. This misinformation and disconnect between institutions leaves much space for Judiciary to act as a mediator to keep the country from political chaos. However, the downside of this disconnect between institutions becomes more apparent when court veers into political terrain. Cases of memo gate and Swiss letter taken up by the apex court were used by political parties to gain political favors and had little to do with any constitutional breach of sovereignty. The judges in apex court should also introspect and identify the deepest binding constraints holding Pakistan back and where their institution may have been part of the problem. However, sometimes Judicial activism has been unprecedented in an uplifting way when it helps buttress the democratic and institutional development of a country instead of impeding progress. It’s the ultimate double-edged sword: the line between use and abuse must remain as wide as possible.