ISLAMABAD The 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court, hearing various petitions against the 18th Amendment, has strongly refuted the impression that the bench and bars are against or denying the powers of the Parliament. Justice Asif Khosa, one of the judges of the larger bench, remarked that their only concern is that the Parliamentary Committee would politicise the judiciary. The debate on Tuesday regarding the 18th Amendment revolved around the sanctity of the Parliament and the basic structure of the Constitution. In his remarks, the Chief Justice said that due to the Parliament, courts were functioning in the country. We rely on the wisdom of the parliamentarians in our decisions, therefore, in the 18th Amendment case, we are also following the same rule, said the CJ. The Chief Justice also asked the leading counsel of the Federation, Wasim Sajjad, not to give the impression that the Supreme Court was against the Parliament. He said, We have high respect for the Parliament. We mould our arguments according to the ground realities and the judgements of the courts. He further said that the Constitution making in Pakistan remained a very difficult process and so the court should consider that aspect too. Wasim Sajjad on Tuesday, conceded that whatever happened with the judiciary on November 3, 2007 was a dark chapter of the history of the country. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday also stated that November 3, 2007 was indeed a dark chapter. He further added that the judiciary has always been on the hit list of the (military) dictators. Responding to the confessional statement made by Wasim Sajjad, Justice Ramday remarked that this was the main reason behind the new arrangement under which the role of the judges was minimised. Thus, it was ensured that no one could arrest them along with their children in future. In his arguments earlier, Wasim Sajjad had strongly defended the role of the Parliament, stating that it was the Parliament that had framed the 1973 Constitution and the Objectives Resolution.The Objective Resolution was part and parcel of the Constitution despite the fact that every one was not an intellectual in Parliament. Wasim Sajjad said, I am conscious of the fact that the appointments of judges are also related to the independence of judiciary. The Chief Justice commented that despite the martial laws in the country the judiciary has survived. Wasim Sajjad was of the view that contributing more to democracy could stop the martial laws. Justice Ramday said that none of the judges sitting on the bench has any personal interest in the case and the petitioners are interested doing it for the best interest of the next generation. Justice Jillani stated that the Articles 175-3 and 209 were in conflict with the 175-A. Justice Jawad Khawaja asked Wasim to juxtapose 2-A with the preamble of the Constitution and what his stance was regarding the preamble. Wasim Sajjad said that the preamble has its own significance but is not part of the Constitution. He said that the two provisions of the constitution couldnt be enforced together because then they would have to be harmonised. He remarked that Pakistan has a unique political and judicial history. The hallmark in the judicial system is precision and the continuity. We have to go by the constitution and the Supreme Court has vast power and it has to protect each and every word of the Constitution. We should not be taken in by the Indian system. Justice Ramday said that certain clauses hold more importance than others and they prevail. He further added that the courts never said that they would strike down the provision on the basis of the doctrine of basic structure, but they have started taking notice of it. Justice Asif Khosa said that right to interpretation gives upper edge to the judiciary. Justice Saqib added that the interpretation aimed to resolve issues between the two parties.