The trichotomy of power forms the very bedrock of political life in democracies, or as is bought by the simpler-minded . That a senior judiciary of a functioning state feels the urge to go well beyond its constitutional mandate and set guidelines for matters that do not–under ordinary circumstances–fall under its domain is all that’s needed to knock the bottom out of the holy grail. After all, the courts are responsible for simply ensuring the laws set out by an elected legislature are followed to the dot. No matter how well-intentioned the chief justice of Pakistan’s suo moto notice against “perceived interference” in criminal matters maybe, giving a script to the executive is akin to playing with fire. Judicial adventurism, wherein, activist judges have repeatedly tried their hand at inserting new legal principles or rejecting the ones already present, is just a few miles away from threatening Montensquie’s famous “emancipation of the state.” In the past, we have seen the likes of Iftikhar Chaudhry lay the foundation stone for jurists entering the murky political waters. Convenient skipping of Article 209 when a single pen stroke dismissed 110 judges in the infamous PCO Judges case, and the long, long list of attention-grabbing suo motu headlines did not go unnoticed by either the public or the members of his own fraternity. The demons of distasteful proceedings still hang heavy in the air so much so that any out-of-the-line step seems dubious and the beginning of another saga. Yes, reforms to protect the investigation officers in high-profile cases from the wrath of the big fish were severely overdue but does the legal code actually allow any wriggling space in such matters? Shouldn’t the august houses be tasked with the crucial task of making amendments and plugging any loopholes as they arise? There could not be a more defining moment in the country’s political history where a clear division of duties and sweeping powers needed to be written on the front wall. That too, in bold letters. Because as over half of the nation raises its fingers at what led to the pulling and tugging of Article 63-A, we cannot let the rest pose questions about whether we are reversing back to the dar days of extra-constitutionalism. *