Whether the 19th Amendment to the Constitution would really avert the possibility of a clash between institutions, as Prime Minister Gilani has claimed, only time and the judgement of the Supreme Court on the petition that occasioned the courts call for review of the 18th Amendment, would tell. It will also then become clear whether, in the opinion of the SC and other judicial experts in the country, the 19th Amendment does in fact make for an independent judiciary, as stipulated in the countrys basic document. PML-Q Likeminded MNA Kashmala Tariq cast the sole dissenting vote against 258 in favour, not because she was opposed to any of the clauses in the proposed Amendment but because she wanted other issues that have also been brought before the SC for decision, to be side by side taken up in the Amendment. These pleas relate to the maintaining of the practice of democratically created hierarchies in political parties and the carving out of more provinces. There was some merit in her suggestions. The consideration of these points would have forestalled a probable reference from the apex court to Parliament again. And, there is always the apprehension that should the presently growing dissensions in the ruling coalition become well marked, the government might then have to regret that it ignored Ms Kashmala Tariqs views and, thus, lost the chance of achieving a consensus on these important issues. Coming to the question of clash with the judiciary, it is worthwhile noting that, no doubt, the number of judges on the Judicial Commission for the appointment of judges has been increased from the two senior most judges to the four senior most judges, other reservations expressed by the apex court when it had sent the 18th Amendment back to Parliament for review have, it appears, remain unaddressed. For instance, the reference to the presence of the Law Minister on the Judicial Commission has not been touched. Besides, the powers of the Chief Justice to appoint ad hoc judges have been taken away from him. However, this point was clarified by Senator Mian Raza Rabbani, Convenor of the committee that reviewed the 18th Amendment and came up with 19th , that the CJ would not be required to send the names to the parliamentary committee but to the Prime Minister through the Judicial Commission. In the entire controversy about the 18th Amendment what was at stake was the independence of the judiciary. In a democratic dispensation, this is as sacrosanct as an article of faith. And, in a milieu like ours where transgressions of law by those in power have become a matter of routine, a free and an independent judiciary is perhaps the sole saving grace that could help set things right. Nothing that could provide the slightest pretext for eroding this attribute of the judiciary would be acceptable to the nation.