Of the three centres of power till, say, a few months ago, the president, the army chief, and the chief justice of Pakistan, the CJP was supposed to be the last one to go.

Some had feared that would not happen, since it was technically possible that the Supreme Court ordered an extension for him and other judges for the period they remained ousted from their jobs. There was a petition pending before the Court with this prayer. Fortunately, better sense prevailed and the government announced the name of the person next in line in order of seniority, a principle laid down by the Supreme Court itself.

With the country’s longest-serving Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry expected to retire in a few days time, it is an opportune time to make a fair assessment of his legacy. Whether it will sustain or not has been a subject of great debate in the country for some time, as if everybody knows what the legacy means.

Whatever the legacy may mean, it is important at this time to evaluate the functioning of the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Iftikhar Chaudhry. The opinion is generally divided and the divide is pretty sharp. At the end of his tenure, it seems, there is very little unqualified support left for the way the affairs of the judiciary were conducted. Yet, those who support him are convinced that the CJP Chaudhry has "provided an alternative narrative to the judicial history of Pakistan" and has redefined the role of judiciary. They think he has transformed the face of the Supreme Court; whether that’s for good or bad is another matter, they say.

That nuance, between good or bad, is what the academics are interested in. They do not see this period in our judicial history as isolated or cut off from the past. The activism of the Court is not a new phenomenon either; it has parallels from our own past that again drew on what was happening in the neighbouring countries.

We have tried to explore some of these academic concerns in today’s Special Report but we have also asked law practitioners to share their views about the legacy of this period. The themes that are largely touched upon are judicial activism, judicial independence versus restraint, pandering to populism and media’s role, opaqueness in appointments and removal, lack of accountability, the consequences of judicial independence for democracy and, most importantly, the jurisprudence of this period.

Only time will tell how the next phase of our judicial history pans out under the new chief justice. Here are a few suggestions for him if he is ready to heed them.