Mr. Ali Azim Afridi, The Petitioner

20th August 2021.

A news report from Peshawar enlightens us about the Peshawar HC that has subpoenaed the attorney general for Pakistan and Pakistan Bar Council incumbent upon a requisition in contradiction to the rules, which permit the council to give a state plea for a demurral.

A bench entailing of Justice Roohul Amin Khan and Justice Waqar Ahmad secured Sept 15 for the next proceeding into the case commanding the attorney general, who is also the PBC chairman, along with the council’s VC and the chairman of its executive committee, must appear before the council to respond to the petition of lawyer Ali Azim Afridi. The petitioner asked the court to rule that Rule 175-E of the Pakistan Authorized Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1976, is unconstitutional.

The supplicant also entreated the court to declare as unconstitutional Rule 175-B to the extent of insubordination of verdicts by lawyers relative to remonstration calls given by the PBC. Conferring to the rule, non-observance of instructions of the Pakistan Bar Council by any bar council or bar association or any member of the bar/advocate will be considered to be uncivilized professional delinquency.


Mr. Afridi implored the court to instruct the PBC not to preclude or cause a deterrent for the petitioner, advocates, and public beseeching before courts. The plaintiffs in the issuing are the Federation of Pakistan through the federal law secretary, the Pakistan Bar Council through its vice-chairman, the PHC Bar Association through its secretary-general, the PHC record-keeper, and the KP law secretary. According to the petitioner, the Constitution was written to establish justice and equality.

He said the Constitution fortified ultimate rights by countenancing the public to appeal to the constitution when their rights are challenged. Mr. Afridi stated that the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act of 1973 authorized the PBC to make rules under Section 55 of the Act. He declared the right to implore for justice was a rudimentary right guaranteed by the Constitution and such call of strikes at the national level barred lawyers from implementing their duties and responsibilities that, too, to the disgrace of Pakistani citizens.

The petitioner opposed that it was the onus of the magistrates to examine the power and authority of legislature at the benchmark of the Constitution. He said the law didn’t provide for action against a lawyer over non-observance or defiance of the instructions on the bidding of strike or protest issued by the PBC. Mr. Afridi stated that when a conflict between the Act and the rules was irreconcilable, the rule would be declared ultra vires. He claimed that the law forbade an individual from acting as a complainant, prosecutor, judge, or executioner.

Please contact the Legal Research Institute of Pakistan for further assistance

Leave a Reply