Although the unnecessary confrontation in the appointment of judges between the executive and judiciary has been defused by acceptance of the demands of Chief Justice by the government, the questions remain as to who is the ultimate authority to appoint judges in the superior judiciary? What role did President and Prime Minister played, when even after the consultation, the decision of Chief Justice prevailed? What is the check on discretionary powers of the Chief Justice? Why Justice Khalil Ramday has been appointed as an ad hoc judge for one year? Why in presence of the senior most judge of the Lahore High Court, judges junior to him are elevated to be judges of the Supreme Court? Is Chief Justice of Lahore High Court not qualified to be the judge of Supreme Court? Resolving difference of opinion on the interpretation of articles of the constitution is, of course, a responsibility and domain of the judiciary but there is a perception here that the present bench of the Apex Court is actually making the laws in place of the legislature. Instead of the decisions of the judges speaking as per the old adage, the judges are speaking themselves--and on everything. The government should implement the Charter of Democracy so that the issue of appointment of judges is resolved once for all. It is not in the interest of people that either of the judiciary or executive should not have a power of veto in the matter of appointment of judges. -ENGR S. T. HUSSAIN, Lahore, February 20