In a country of more than 180 million people, it came down to 17 individuals -- the Justices of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Most of us will never experience that kind of pressure in our lives where our decision(s) will shape a country’s politics, its present as well as history and the lives of an enormous number of people. Before the Honourable Court were some of the hardest questions any polity can confront.

The untrained observer might not realise the enormous intellectual exercise and pressures involved in deciding great constitutional law cases. Supreme Court judges, in any country, do not have the luxury that people like you and I do. They cannot openly air their views nor debate them with public. They also do not have the luxury of deferring opinion on difficult questions. When an issue confronts them, it demands a resolution. It is also not an option for them to constantly re-visit their ideas. And yet the decisions that they make impact lives every day and they often are called on to make decisions that impact generations.

The result first: a majority of the Honourable Justices held that the 18th and 21st Amendments to the Constitution are valid laws. However, there are certain "salient features" of the Constitution which cannot be done away with in the name of "amending" the Constitution. Hence, the parliament’s power to "amend" the Constitution is not unlimited.

These cases presented enormously difficult questions. Intelligent people can reasonably disagree about the outcomes and disagree with what our judges did. These disagreements are healthy and must be celebrated. There are weighty considerations on all sides. There are three strands of opinion in the latest ruling -- and all of them, regardless of disagreements, represent a concern for effective representative constitutional democracy.

I urge all of you to read the latest judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court. Citizens are free to agree or disagree with a particular viewpoint -- even of apex courts -- and discussion on these issues makes democracies and constitutions stronger. Each opinion that is a part of the apex court’s ruling deserves engagement on its own -- but space limits that possibility.

Those citizens who claim to believe in judicial restraint will caution against giving judiciary the power to rule on matters that the Constitution leaves with the people and their representatives. The argument is that the judiciary is unelected and not directly accountable to the people -- hence constitutional amendments should be respected by the judiciary. If the people have a problem with a constitutional amendment, they will vote out those responsible for such amendments. Furthermore, the Constitution in clear terms (in Articles 239 (5) and (6)) shields the substance of constitutional amendments from judicial scrutiny. In the popular imagination, the debate goes further. People legitimately raise questions about the troubled history of our own Supreme Court -- multiple instances exist of legitimising military coups so why not strengthen an elected parliament when the chance arises?

All of these factors were, of course, present in the mind of the honourable Court. And multiple judges in clear terms engage with these issues. The opinion of the Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan is a joy to read if you are a judicial conservative. In unambiguous terms, our country’s senior most Justice declares that the will of the people, as expressed through their representatives, is to be given primacy in matters of constitutional amendments. This opinion reminds us that our apex court is a creature of the Constitution -- and therefore it refuses to assume for itself the power to change that supreme document once the People’s representatives have acted to change it.

Two other honourable judges, Justice Saqib Nisar and Justice Khosa also make clear how conscious they are of the weight on the Honourable Court and the apex court’s responsibility in a representative democracy; both defer to the will of the people and leave the matter of constitutional amendments to the people and their elected representatives. These opinions will live long in our constitutional history and they deserve continuous engagement and discussion.

A large number of people in this country agree with this result but perhaps an equal number then point to the fact that the Constitution can be easily amended and this allows a political party with requisite numbers to play havoc with the bargain represented by the Constitution. The argument goes further: there are certain features of the Constitution which cannot be amended because they are the essence of our constitutional system. Those disagreeing with this view might justifiably say that the "basic structure" or the "salient features" doctrine binds all successive generations to the views of the framers of the Constitution. However, there is a lot of popular appeal in the argument about what Madison called "the tyranny of the majority". By accepting that there are limits on powers of parliament to amend the Constitution, the Honourable Supreme Court is (as per one argument) reserving for itself the power to check those actions which change the basics of the bargain represented by the Constitution. Even if you disagree with this result, you can make sense of the argument that an apex court is reserving to itself a power to review constitutional amendments -- a power that it will only exercise in the rarest of cases.

And then there are those who always live in history in great constitutional cases: the dissenting Justices.

As per those in dissent, an "amendment" to the Constitution means just that -- an ‘amendment’ and not a distortion or destruction. And how do we assess whether the Constitution is being distorted, i.e. from where do we derive the standard? Opinions can and do vary on this. Some will point to limitations that go beyond ‘political limitations’ and these, as per the view of those dissenting in the Honourable Supreme Court, can be derived by reading the Constitution as a holistic document. These arguments will always have appeal in nascent democracies which are trying to ensure an enduring democratic set-up. A large number of those in the majority and minority agreed that a constitutional amendment can be struck down.

A total of 13 judges (majority and dissents included) decided that the top court can strike down constitutional amendments. The only difference was that the dissenting judges saw severe problems with the amendments under review, while those in the majority found the said amendments to withstand scrutiny.

Justice Khawaja, in one dissent, asks us to remain mindful of our troubled history and reminds us that our representatives are in the position of "fiduciaries" -- they do not have unlimited power. Thus, our own history and politics become most important; what matters are the standards applicable to our situation -- not those somewhere else in the world.

All of the opinions in the Honourable Supreme Court were written by people who gave deep thought to the principles, outcomes, effects and legacies involved in this case. The discussions in opinions of the apex court are not just personal views but are based on the Justices’ conversations with history, precedent, democracy, words of the Constitution as well as giants like Holmes, Madison, Tribe, Rumi etc. The diversity of opinions, and dissent, enriches our constitutional law as well as our politics. This must be celebrated.

People may disagree (as this writer does) with the power of an apex court to strike down constitutional amendments -- but this is not the end of the debate. The end aim here is the same: to make our democracy stronger, just and more inclusive. But this should not make us shy away from passionate disagreement; the very essence of a democracy.