Salamat Ali alias Chamma vs The State and another
This matter comes before the Supreme Court regarding circumstances involving professional conduct of advocates and disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Punjab Bar Council. The core legal question concerns whether the disciplinary mechanism and proceedings conducted by the Punjab Bar Council met the required statutory standards and the code of conduct under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1976, in light of constitutional imperatives for inexpensive and expeditious justice under Article 37(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held, prima facie, that the disciplinary proceedings appeared to have fallen short of the prescribed standards and adjourned the matter to examine the law and the decision of the Punjab Bar Council Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that the Bar and its members must adhere to their code of conduct and remain subject to the rule of law to ensure effective access to and delivery of justice.
- Whether the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Punjab Bar Council met the standards set out in the code of conduct for advocates?
- What is the obligation of the Bar and its members in upholding the constitutional imperative of inexpensive and expeditious justice?
- Article 37(d), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973
- Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1976
ORDER
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. --- Mr. Khalid Umar, Advocate has appeared with the record. He shall prepare a copy of the record and file the same in Court before the next date of hearing.
2. The necessity for fixing this matter in Court, is evident from the circumstances set out in our order dated 31.8.2012 and the events which have followed the said order. We had noted in our order that "a competent, diligent and ethical Bar is an indispensable component of our judicial system. This system cannot function properly if Members of the Bar do not adhere to the code of conduct prescribed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, /973". The provisions of Article 37(d) of the Constitution are also of the utmost relevance. This Article stipulates that "the State shall ...
Ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice". From the decorous and dignified manner in which the learned Trial Court dealt with the matter, it is apparent that there were hindrances placed before the learned Trial Court which resulted in denial of the above-noted Constitutional imperative.
3. The Bar exists for the purpose of ensuring access to and delivery of justice. The Bar is also meant to stand up for upholding the rule of law. But the Bar can discharge these functions only if its members abide by their code of conduct and are subjected, like everyone else, to the rule of law.
4. The disciplinary mechanism of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1976 and the proceedings taken by the Punjab Bar Council in this case appear, prima facie, to have fallen short of the standards set out for Advocates in the code of conduct prescribed under the aforesaid Act.
5. It is inter alia, for the above reasons that we would like to examine the law and, in the light thereof the decision of the Punjab Bar Council Tribunals dated 24.10.2013.
6. Notice issued to Malik Haider Zaman, Advocate has been returned unserved. Let fresh notice issue to Malik Haider Zaman, Advocate for 17th March, 2014.