The judiciary as it exists today also owes much to the Emergency. From the Supreme Court’s capitulation in the habeas corpus case in 1976—where it ruled in the government’s favour 4-1, putting its seal on the regime’s vast powers of preventive detention and denying citizens any recourse—to the punitive transfers of high court judges and the 42nd Amendment’s abolition of judicial review, the judiciary’s humbling was extensive. It is perhaps best summed up by Justice Mirzah Hamedullah Beg’s farcical remark in the habeas corpus case that “the care and concern bestowed by the state authorities upon the welfare of detenus…is almost maternal." The backlash came soon after the end of the Emergency. Granville Austin has noted that the Supreme Court, smarting and eager to reassert its independence, created the concept of the public interest litigation in this period—and adopted a proactive stance in matters of governance and administration that has persisted to this day. This has altered the equation between the executive, legislature and judiciary in ways that are not always appropriate.