The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has said that the Supreme Court cannot endorse the unconstitutional rights of any institution, therefore any action by the armed forces taken without a direction by the federal government would be unconstitutional, illegal, void ab initio and consequently of no legal effect. He was stating nothing new, but merely something the Supreme Court had already declared in its judgement in the case of the Sindh High Court Bar Association vs the Federation of Pakistan, to which he referred, in his remarks to faculty members of the National Defence University who called on him on Saturday in Islamabad. The Chief Justice also remarked that the Supreme Court was entrusted by the Constitution with the responsibility of interpreting it. He was thus dispelling the doubts being sown by the government, which was defying the orders of the Supreme Court so as to protect the President, that the government might find itself replaced by a government of technocrats which would be backed by the military. Alternatively, the military has been used to take over, as it has done four times previously, and won backing from the Supreme Court on all occasions except the Yahya martial law, when the judgement condemning him as a usurper came after he was no more in office. Telling this to the NDU faculty meant making it clear to the future military leadership of the country that the old judicial support of the military was now over, and the military had no option other than to behave with constitutional propriety. Another aspect of what he said was that he made it clear that the armed forces did not have some role above the Constitution, which allowed it to monitor the elected government. The problem with such nebulous notions is that they leave undefined entirely lines of legal responsibility, and thus do not allow the Supreme Court any room to interpret the Constitution. However, the Chief Justices saying that the interpretation of the Constitution lay on the Court should be viewed as of wider application than just the armed forces, and should make it clear that any interpretation of the law by any official authority could well be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This should not give pause to any executive authority as committed to the rule of law, but any such authority wishing to be as arbitrary as in the past, will find its path blocked, if not by other judicial authorities, then by the Supreme Court itself. These remarks should not be interpreted by the government, which prides itself on being elected, as giving it protection from military rule, but as a commitment to make it adhere to the path of strict legality.