ISLAMABAD In response to our sacrifices that we have rendered for the democracy and system, the democratically elected Government is threatening us of dire consequences and not implementing our verdicts in true letter and spirit. What can we do in a situation where the system itself is moving towards self-destruction? Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, one of the judges of the 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court, remarked while hearing the 18th Amendment case on Wednesday. The bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry while hearing the arguments of Akram Sheikh said that it was necessary to understand the circumstances and wisdom behind the 18th Amendment. The Chief Justice remarked, Even before 18th Amendment, we sacrificed many of our competent colleagues (PCO-judges) through our July 31 verdict in respect of Constitution. He added, After decades-long deliberations, legislators separated judiciary from executive back in 1993 solely for the purpose of independent judiciary. In our Judicial Policy, we kept ourselves away from executive appointments like acting governorship and other such posts in various public departments. Judiciary wants stability of democracy and we wish in the earnest that it remains unharmed. Advocate Akram Sheikh argued that the procedure of appointing judges was not included in the mandate of a parliamentary committee. He further said that the Amendment had not been translated into regional languages. He also requested the bench to declare Article 175A, dealing with the procedure of appointing judges, as null and void. Justice Jawad S Khawaja remarked that Parliament was representing the will of the people and the will of the people was above the Constitution. Sheikh insisted, The Constitutional Committee was not mandated to establish a commission concerning the judges appointments. The judiciary is bound by law to have an eye on the Federal as well as Provincial Governments. Citing the example of Britain, Akram said the judiciary in that country was consulted when the law relating to judges appointment was amended, however, the Law Commission was not approached for consultation when the same was done in Pakistan. The bench asked Akram to remain specific in his arguments about Article 175A rather to wasting precious time of the apex court. Justice Saqib Nisar asked Akram whether the judicial review power of the Supreme Court had been abolished through the 18th Amendment. Akram replied, What does judicial review mean when judiciary and judges would not be there?