THE Supreme Court, which has taken up the sugar price, has adjourned the case to November 30 to allow the federal government to present its National Sugar Policy 2009-10, to the Parliament. Acting Attorney General, on behalf of the house, assured the court that the report would be presented taking on board all the stakeholders. The three-member Bench of the Court, hearing the review of its upholding of the Lahore High Courts fixing of the price, also approved the agreement between the government and the millers to ensure availability at Rs 40 per kg. The acting Attorney General also told the court that the mills would release 30 percent of their stock for domestic consumption and 70 percent for industrial consumption, thus illustrating that the majority of sugar consumption was industrial, for example in the bottled drinks or baking industries, not domestic. However, while for industries, sugar prices, like those of any other inputs, were a pass-through item, but they placed direct pressure on ordinary consumers. The Lahore High Court first fixed the price of sugar, which had gone though the roof, and was upheld on this by the Supreme Court. However, both the millers and the federal government filed a review petition, currently being heard. The result of the upholding decision was not sugar coming to the set price, but the disappearance of sugar from the markets, as the mills, checked suddenly in their hoarding and profiteering, stopped selling or milling. The disobedience by dumb insolence must not be repeated. The Supreme Court has ordered a price, and the Court must be obeyed. Once the precedent of sugar is established, the Court may be motivated to move onto other items. Though the courts should not be involved in fixing prices for any commodity, if the Executive and the Legislative branches cannot do their jobs, then the Judicial branch will probably have to step in. This is the case in which it is showing that it must be obeyed.