For the first time in the history of Pakistan, a sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has appeared in parliament to address the lawmakers on issues pertaining to the dispensation of justice after Chief Justice (CJ) Anwer Zaheer Jamali was invited to speak in the upper house of parliament by Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani, himself a renowned constitutional lawyer, to promote an ‘intra-institutional dialogue’. The significance of the address is therefore in its novelty and the implications it can have on the institutions of the state going forward rather the content of the speech itself, which was not groundbreaking in and of itself. Nonetheless, the CJ made several important points regarding the supremacy of the constitution, independence of the judiciary and the importance of upholding the rule of law. While these points have been spoken about at length many times before and are considered accepted wisdom, they bear repeating, especially given the esteemed positions of both the speaker and the venue and the lacuna between these avowed principles and practices on the ground. The main thrust of the CJ’s speech was the call for a push towards effective enforcement of existing laws by agencies responsible for doing so, as without meaningful implementation, all laws, regardless of their merits, were useless and the prevailing status quo was thus harmful to the stability and development of the country. The CJ took an overall view of the crisis plaguing the judicial system, especially at the critical lower levels, and suggested reformatory courses of action to the legislators. He urged the government to take appropriate measures to ensure that basic human rights of the citizens were protected and that the most vulnerable members of the public had access to speedy and inexpensive justice. He called on parliament to use its powers to ensure investment was made in innovation and improvement of the quality and reach of justice services. The CJ also defended the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) occasional intervention in administrative matters by stating that while the superior judiciary was cognizant of the executive’s prerogatives, it becomes “a matter of judicial consideration when rights are denied…at which point the judiciary is compelled to order administrative reforms.” Nevertheless, as per the CJ, the SC was committed to working in harmony with other institutions of the state for the establishment of a “modern and enlightened Pakistan”. The elevated status and importance of a judge of the superior courts means that as per unspoken norms, it is generally considered imprudent for the members of the judiciary to fraternise with other movers and shakers of the polity. This expectation of distance is so that the honourable judges are not at risk of being accused of prejudice when hearing a noteworthy case and a reasonable objectivity can be assumed. However, this address by the CJ, while the first of its kind, does not constitute a break with such a protocol and should be seen exactly as what it appears to be: a healthy sign of institutional engagement in a developing democracy. Amicable relations and cooperation between parliament and the judiciary can ensure that an unseemly territorial tussle between two powerful bodies can be avoided in favour of finding practical solutions to potentially crippling systemic concerns. For instance, this address, an example of institutional cooperation, comes on the heels of the rumblings in the Parliamentary Committee on Judges’ Appointment (PCJA) over its diminished role, an example of a possible institutional squabble. While the proximity of the two events is fortuitous, continued congenial dialogue between parliament and the SC can help resolve the friction around the judicial appointment procedure. A ‘firewall’ between the two institutions helps no one and the collaborative spirit of the address should be wholly welcomed. The Senate, for its part, should now take heed of the problems and suggestions made the CJ and do its duty in taking the appropriate measures to reform the provision of justice in Pakistan for the better. Such lofty speeches can only be meaningful if the principles espoused in them are matched with action and redressal of the flawed practices on the ground. *