TARIQ MASOOD Versus SUPREME COURT ENROLMENT COMMITTEE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the decision of the Supreme Court Enrolment Committee deferring his application for a certificate of fitness to be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court for one year. The core legal question was whether the Enrolment Committee was legally bound to record reasons for deferring or refusing the grant of a fitness certificate. The Supreme Court held that the statutory instruments vest the competent authority and discretion in the Chief Justice and Judges to decide on the grant of fitness certificates, and the Committee, acting as a domestic forum, is not required to state reasons for its decision. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the discretionary nature of the Enrolment Committee's assessment and the non-requirement of recorded reasons.
- Whether the Supreme Court Enrolment Committee is required to record reasons when deferring or refusing a certificate of fitness for enrolment as an Advocate of the Supreme Court?
- Does the High Court interfere in the exercise of discretion by the Supreme Court Enrolment Committee regarding the grant of fitness certificates?
- Whether the Supreme Court Enrolment Committee functions as a domestic forum not obligated to give express reasons for its decisions?
ORDER
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the Lahore High Court to interfere with the decision of the Supreme Court Enrolment Committee of that Court, to defer his case for grant of certificate of fitness to be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court for one year. The petitioner after completing five years' practice as an Advocate of the High Court, had applied for the certificate, whereupon be, along with many other similar applicants, had been interviewed by the Committee. The grievance of the petitioner was that the Committee should have either granted him the certificate as he suffered from no disqualification, or given reasons for deferring his case, on this basis, he challenged the decision of the Committee in the Constitutional jurisdiction but the same was dismissed. He preferred an Intra-Court Appeal but the same, too, failed on C-10-1981. He now seeks leave to appeal.
2. The I.-C. A. Bench of the High Court, after examining the relevant legal provision, held that ; "The statutory instruments vest the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court with the authority and discretion to decide in their wisdom the grant or otherwise of the fitness certificates. No reasons were required to be stated, nor, was-1hat advisable in the circumstances."
The Chairman of the provincial Bar Council and Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, a Senior Advocate of this Court, whose opinions had been sought by the I.C. A. Bench, had also expressed the same views.
They had, further opined that the Committee being a domestic forum it was not proper expect or require it to record express reasons for its decision to refuse o defer the grant of the certificate.
3. We have heard the petitioner but are not persuaded to agree the there is any occasion to interfere with the decision of the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.