ISLAMABAD It had remained the will of every ruler, either democratic or dictator, in the history of Pakistan to make the judges subordinate to his desires, remarked Justice Javed Iqbal, one of the senior most judges of 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court hearing the 18th Amendment Case. While quoting Churchill, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry said that the existence of independent judiciary is vital to protect the rights of the citizens of a country. Justice Javed countered the views of Federations lawyer, Sardar Ghazi who had said that the previous system of judges appointment was faulty, saying that the new appointees would not be angels for the reason they had been appointed by a Parliamentary committee. He said that there was no pressure group in the lawyers to pressurise the judiciary in the process of judges appointment. When the Federations counsel referred to Sura-e-Nisa and asked the court to follow the Quranic justice system, Justice Javed Iqbal citied various verses from the Holy Quran and Hadith to tell Sardar Ghazi that the court was aware of Islamic teachings. Justice was not done during the formulation of 18th Amendment, he observed. He said that in the time of Prophet (PBUH), a 17-year-old intelligent boy was appointed judge due to his honesty. Would verse of Sura-e-Nisa was only for judges, Justice Ramday asked from Ghazi, adding that when every person would start believing that doing justice was only the responsibility of the courts then no one could prevent the society from destruction. Justice Tassadaq Hussain Jillani asked, Does the Government think that by changing the appointment procedure of the judges the independence of judiciary would not affected? Ibraheem Satti, who is representing the Federation, remained confused in his arguments and at one stage he said that the Parliament had no right to amend the Constitution but the court countered his arguments and suggested him to remain precise and not make false statements. Satti asked the court to give such an exemplary judgement which would be followed by every country of the world including India and the US. At this point, Justice Ramday replied, For the time being our own country was even not following our judgements. However, Satti appreciated the Chief Justice for his bold stand before a military dictator. Justice Ramday asked Satti, You were ardent supporter of Musharraf, how could you negate his 3rd November emergency rule? He replied carelessly, saying it was only done for the sake of dal and dalia. Satti submitted his formulations that the Parliament had unfettered power to amend the constitution. He said the court had no power to look into these amendments except for the procedural defects. In support of his formulation he cited Tamizudding Case, while the court observed that it was not relevant citation. Justice Ramday also asked him where it was written that the court had the right to interpret the constitution. Satti also held that not a single political party had challenged the 18th Amendment so therefore court had no power to hear the Parliamentary amendment directly.