The proposed Judicial Oversight and Accountability Act seeks to implement three radical changes: allowing the legislature to overturn Supreme Court rulings with a simple majority; giving the executive branch direct control over the appointment of the Chief Justice; and imposing mandatory retirement ages on all sitting judges.

The legislative push has been met with unprecedented civil unrest, with organized protests shutting down major cities for weeks. Opponents, including legal scholars and former justices, warn that the proposed reforms effectively dismantle the system of checks and balances that has underpinned the nation's democratic stability for generations.

They argue that a politicized judiciary would be unable to protect minority rights or uphold constitutional protections against government overreach. The ruling coalition, however, argues that the current court has become an unelected "oligarchy," consistently blocking social and economic reforms passed by democratically elected representatives.

They claim the judiciary has overstepped its bounds through judicial review, inserting itself into policy decisions that rightfully belong to the legislature. The political crisis is fundamentally one of legitimacy: who holds ultimate authority in the state—the popularly elected government or the appointed judiciary? The outcome of this legislative battle will determine the future character of the nation's democracy, establishing whether the power of the executive will be tempered by an independent legal body or whether political mandates will reign supreme and unchecked by constitutional constraints.