Ali Khan [Washburn University School of Law]: "The suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry provides a historic constitutional opportunity for the Pakistan Supreme Court to assert judicial independence. The preamble to the Constitution conceives Pakistan's legal order as a "sacred trust . . . wherein the independence of the judiciary shall be fully secured." Despite this elegant language, the Constitution saddled the independence of the judiciary with a waiting period.

Accordingly, Article 175 of the Constitution states: "The Judiciary shall be separated progressively from the Executive within fourteen years from the commencing day." The original Article 175 allowed only five years for the proposed separation. General Zia ul Haq, who overthrew the political government in July 1977, amended Article 175 to extend the waiting period to fourteen years. Now, almost 34 years have passed since the commencing day of the Constitution, August 14, 1973. The Supreme Court may take judicial notice of the fact whether the Executive order to suspend the Chief Justice is also, among other things, a violation of Article 175.

Article 175 does not annul the President's constitutional power to direct an inquiry against a Supreme Court Justice—a power that the President may judiciously exercise under Article 209. The expiration of the fourteen years waiting period, however, has progressively weakened, if not exterminated, the Executive powers to control the Judiciary. During the waiting period, Article 209 could have been construed in favor of the Presidential power. After the expiration of the waiting period, however, the Presidential power to direct an inquiry against judges must be construed in favor of the independence of the Judiciary. If the Supreme Court has doubts about the President's intentions, or if the Article 209 inquiry against the Chief Justice appears to weaken the independence of the Judiciary, the Executive order must fall. The nation-wide lawyers' protests demonstrate that the Executive order to suspend the Chief Justice is broadly viewed as an assault on the independence of the Judiciary."