Our constitution entrusts the Supreme Court with different jurisdiction. The apex court, under our scheme of constitution, exercises appellate and review jurisdiction, supervisory jurisdiction, original jurisdiction, and advisory jurisdiction. In this space the writer of this column, and elsewhere, much has been written about the original jurisdiction. And the need to determine its contours and further restrict its application so that the court does not meddle into policy affairs or slide into a political thicket. In addition, with the recent trends we have seen on the Bench, as one man at the helm transforms into a Godot overnight; the constitution should have checks and balances to reign in such judicial overreach too. Original jurisdiction needs to be reviewed. But a bigger affront to separation of powers is not the original jurisdiction of the apex court; it is its advisory jurisdiction. Pursuant to Article 186 (1) “If, at any time, the President considers that it is desirable to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law which he considers of public importance, he may refer the question to the Supreme Court for consideration.” The Supreme Court pursuant to Article 186(2) “shall consider a question so referred and report its opinion on the question to the President.” The Article envisages a few caveats. It is for the President to determine if the opinion of the court is desirable; the matter pertains to a question of law and that he considers such a question of law to be one of public importance. More importantly, it is not mandatory on the Supreme Court to give an opinion. All these are important qualifications introduced in the Article itself. This provision has rarely been used by the governments in the past. So, when the President decided to send the issue of “open-ballot” for senate elections to the Supreme Court for its opinion it did strike as a surprise to many. The courts should only be required to interpret law and review executive and parliamentary actions – and not pre-empt actions by rendering opinions Surprise, because, here is a government that is so uncertain of its decisions, that even before it makes one, it asks the court for its opinion. Asking the Supreme Court to render its opinion has two consequences. One, the Federal Government concedes greater space to another coordinate branch i.e. the Supreme Court. And two, it again slides the court into political thicket. Except that this time merely to seek an opinion. Consider a scenario where the government does not agree with the opinion of the Supreme Court and makes a decision that is contrary to the opinion? Well, not only is that unlikely, especially after the opinion was sought. And secondly, there is every chance that such a decision would be reviewed by the courts and quite likely set aside. This is where the problem with advisory jurisdiction emerges. Effectively, a non-elected panel of jurists, when called for an opinion on a question of law concerning public importance, ends up making a decision for the elected government, as it ventures to offer its opinion. Why, recklessly, assign the role of the executive, in this case determining the mode and schedule of senate elections, to the Supreme Court? The advice the President sought from the Supreme Court should have come from the Attorney General’s Office – and if it was furnished, it should have been enough, unless the government felt another opinion was required from a private counsel. The question whether Article 226 of the constitution places a bar on an open ballot or that the constitution in accordance with Article 219., in conjunction with Elections Act, 2017 and its provisions, inter alia, 105, 107, 120 and 122 reserves issues of conduct, mode and schedule of the senate election to the Election Commission of Pakistan – should not be answered by the Supreme Court in its opinion. This decision can be taken by the government without involving the court at all. Even if it was a political stunt, it should be avoided as it aimed to undermine both the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of Pakistan. Gone are the days of English Stuart Kings. Advisory jurisdiction has no scope today. The courts should only be required to interpret law and review executive and parliamentary actions – and not preempt actions by rendering opinions. To the President, on the issue of senate elections, Sir Edward Coke, would have replied “this auricular taking of opinions, single and apart, was new and dangerous…” Perhaps, adding – better still, remove Article 186 from the text of the constitution! The writer attended Berkeley and is a Barrister of Lincoln’s Inn