Delivering a discourse at the Sind High Court Bar Association on Thursday, CJP Issa expressed that in the event that there has been any obstruction in their work, it has not been informed to him and all the situations that were remarked in the message by the Islamabad High Court judges unfolded before his vigilance commenced. This is not to signify, notwithstanding, that the CJP has forgiven any obstruction. In point of fact, he has proclaimed such interference as inadmissible. Last calendar month, six judges of the IHC Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz had scribes a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council , desiring its counsel on  interference by intelligence agencies in tribunal affairs. The IHC judges memo has rightfully been regarded commendably. Nonetheless, this is not the initial circumstance that such interference has been recorded. IHC judge, Justice (r) Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui was eliminated from his position for an address he had given respecting this problem whilst speaking to the Rawalpindi Bar Association on July 21, 2018. He had averred interference in magistrate topics and alleged endeavors at manipulating the composition of high court benches. In sequence, numerous references were lodged against him and he was eventually discharged from his post on October 11, 2018. In March this year, years later, the Supreme Court proclaimed Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s expulsion to have been “unlawful”. The latest epistle by the IHC judges was scribed post the Justice Siddiqui decree. The SC instigated suo-motu measures on the IHC judges’ letter and requested a proposition from the Pakistan Bar Council the Supreme Court Bar Association , high courts, and the federal regime in this regard.            Many have noted that there is conspicuously a considerable contrast between the antiquated judiciary and the novel one. When Siddiqui laid emphasis on interference, he was ousted but when these six IHC judges penned a letter, the existing SC initiated suo-motu cognizance and has also sought recommendations from the pertinent forums. This is a rejuvenating transformation. Belief in the lawful system will endure not only if the judiciary itself is beyond reproach but likewise if everyone is convinced that its verdicts are reached founded on testimony and not through coercion from other organizations. Whether or not such accusations carry any verity, they culminate casting more uncertainty over the impartiality of the judiciary and the mushrooming number of inquiries being raised about the intervention of potent forces in the matters of the country. The IHC letter akin to the assertions put forth by previous judge Shaukat Siddiqui brings up more prominent issues regarding the condition of democracy and governance in the nation. A sturdy and autonomous judiciary is imperative for keeping the executive and legislative branches answerable and making certain that the rights of all citizens are sheltered. The worries highlighted by the judges must be regarded earnestly, and direct actions ought to be taken to tackle them. This embraces guaranteeing that judges are liberated from political pressure, menaces, or interference and that they can carry out their responsibilities without apprehension of reprisal. Moreover, modifications should be commenced to reinforce the accountability and transparency of the judiciary, thus enhancing public faith in the lawful system.