a legality to justify the actions resulted in martial law to dismiss the Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto but decided to hear a petition to review the death sentence awarded by the Lahore High Court after the murder trial reached its conclusion. In a controversial leanings of 4:3, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto but it maintained its institutional integrity while taking many cases involving the Zia administration. The institutional de jure powers of the Supreme Court were restored to its original position after the passing of the Eighth Amendment in 1985. After the military takeover of the civilian government, the pro-democracy organizations and PML(N)'s lawyers challenged the legality of the military takeover, asking the supreme court to review its rulings. After the lengthy court battle between Sharif's and Musharraf's lawyers, the Supreme Court was in a clear view of the military take over as "unconstitutional" but favoured the legality on necessity grounds that was viewed as very limited, on 12 May 2000. Widely publicised case, the Nawaz Sharif vs. Federation, the supreme court relied its judgement based on the principle of salus populi est suprema lex and rejected the options of "complete surrender" to the regime or total opposition which, in its judgement, would have led to the "closure of the courts". Due to the Thirteenth Amendment removed the effective check and balance of branches of the government, the supreme court marked its reference using the "Necessitas facit licitum quod alias non-est licitum" and asserted on the right of the Superior Courts to review the orders, proceedings, acts, and legislative measures of the Musharraf regime. In addition, the situation was termed by the supreme court as a "case of constitutional deviation for a transitional period", and accepted Musharraf's argument for holding the national elections within two-to-three years, giving Musharraf until 12 May 2002 to hold new elections. While issuing a lengthy judgement, the supreme court effectively established its institutional authority on Musharraf as it reserved for its right to review and re-examine the continuation of Musharraf's emergency powers. Before this judgement, Musharraf did not hint a timetable for the restoration of democracy – having argued that it needed an indefinite and possibly prolonged time to reform the country – Musharraf publicly submitted to the Court's judgement. Several of Pakistani legal theorists have posited that Pakistan's "grundnorm", the basis for its Constitutional convention and system