On July 31, the Supreme Court (SC) handed down a unanimous verdict which found the proclamation of emergency order of November 3, 2007 including all laws and amendments effected under that order unconstitutional and illegal. The verdict has declared the decision in Tikka Iqbal case void ab initio and the de novo appointments to higher judicial offices on consultation of the then de facto CJ Dogar not in accordance with the spirit of the constitution. As per the decision, the judges who took oath under PCO 2007 in contravention of their constitutional obligations and violation of a seven member SC bench order will be proceeded against under Article 209 by the Supreme Judicial Council - an institution envisaged by the 1973 constitution to try judges of higher courts on allegations of misconduct. The Islamabad High Court has been declared defunct by the SC judgement as its establishment requires an amendment to the constitution. The increase in number of SC judges through Finance Act 2008 has been rendered unconstitutional as the Parliament has the sole authority to make decision in this regard but the said Act was approved only by the National Assembly. The court has given 120 days to the Parliament to make decision as to the fate of 37 ordinances incorporated in the PCO including the much-denounced NRO. It is worth noting that the SC decision has increased the confidence of people in the court to seek redress for their grievances. People now feel secure that they would not be denied the provision of their fundamental rights by arbitrary executive action any more. Notwithstanding being a landmark judgement, its deterrent effect on ambitious generals will depend to a large extent on the strength of democratic institutions and of civil society. Although the present legislature has played a commendable role by not indemnifying Musharraf's November 3 actions but there is great need to strengthen and make more effective the Parliament's role in the realm of policy making. Some sceptical analysts have been raising objections against the judicial activism of the SC on the basis that such moves entail undue interference in the working of the other government institutions. But such arguments carry no weight as the judiciary cannot work in isolation without taking notice of unattended wrongs in State's affairs. The notion of 'judicial restraint' is archaic and the increasing complexity of governance affairs necessitates the existence of checks and balance system. If the masses are left at the mercy of the despotic executive authorities and justice is denied to the former, it breeds discontent and foments rebellion. The dispensation of justice strengthens the connection between the society and the state. In the wake of the recent decision, it is a monumental challenge to institutionalise the independence of judiciary by making the process of selection of higher courts' judges more transparent while party affiliations should be given no consideration. The writer is a freelance columnist E-mail: naumanlawyer@gmail.com