ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court issued notices to the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) secretary and the attorney general for Pakistan for May 09 regarding the maintainability of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA)’s petition.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Ayesha A Malik, on Friday, heard the Vice-President SCBA’s petition to set aside the show cause notices issued by the PBC to Association’s Secretary Muqtedir Akhtar Shabbir and Additional Secretary Malik Shakeelur Rehman on 12.4.2023.
The PBC had de-seated Muqtedir and Shakeel and sent the matter to the disciplinary committee of the Council for further proceedings.
The bench ordered that the status quo is to be maintained.
During the proceeding, SCBA President Abid S Zuberi filed an unnumbered Civil Miscellaneous Application, which shows that during the pendency of this petition, the SCBA’s counsel referred to Rule 118 of the Pakistan Legal Practitioner and Bar Council Rules, 1976 and argued that under the niceties of this Rule, the only competent authority was the disciplinary committee where a complaint, if any, against Muqtedir and Shakeel should have been filed to take cognizance and decide the matter as per the Rules, which is applicable mutatis mutandis even in the cases where PBC starts suo moto disciplinary proceedings against an advocate under Rule 125. He further argued that no specific rule or any section of law has been cited in the show cause notices.
The court questioned why the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is directly invoked rather than filing writ petition in the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution? The counsel argued that certain dictums have been laid down by this Court wherein the invoking of High Court jurisdiction was not approved. In support of his contention, he relied on the cases reported as Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen and others vs Pakistan Bar Council and others (PLD 2017 SC 231) and Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani vs Pakistan Bar Council through Secretary, Supreme Court Bar and others (2021 SCMR 425).
The bench then asked the counsel to satisfy on the maintainability of this petition under Article 184 3) of the Constitution which predominantly relates to the question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights of the Constitution.
The counsel then sought time to make submissions on the next date. He; however, contended that the reply to the show cause notices were submitted but, without providing any opportunity of hearing, the drastic action of de-seating was taken which is a grave violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution and after passing illegal order of de-seating, the matter has been referred to Disciplinary Committee.
He requested the Court that since the order of de-seating has not been implemented; therefore, its operation may be suspended on the imminent apprehension that if no restraining order is passed, the incumbent to the posts will take over the charge from petitioners No2 and 3.
The court was also informed that the order of de-seating has already been passed by the PBC with regard to the offices of petitioners No2 and 3, therefore, at this stage, a mandatory form of injunction cannot be granted without notice to the other side.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.