2014 PLP 747 (SCMR)
SALAMAT ALI alias CHAMMA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 747 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Ejaz Afzal Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SALAMAT ALI alias CHAMMA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973), (b) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 747 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973), (b) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 747 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Ejaz Afzal Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 747 (SCMR) (SALAMAT ALI alias CHAMMA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 2014.
- ----S. 41---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 37(d)---Code of conduct for advocates---Misconduct by an advocate before the Trial Court---Disciplinary proceedings taken by the Punjab Bar Council against such advocate---Propriety---Supreme Court observed that Art. 37(d) of the Constitution stipulated that "the State shall ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice", but in the present case, it was apparent that there were hindrances placed before the Trial Court which resulted in denial of the said constitutional imperative; that the disciplinary mechanism of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1976 and the proceedings taken by the Punjab Bar Council, in the present case, against the advocate in question appeared, prima facie, to have fallen short of the standards set out for Advocates in the code of conduct prescribed under the said Act---Supreme Court held that it was inter alia, for such reasons that court would like to examine the law (on the subject) and, in the light thereof the decision of the Punjab Bar Council Tribunal---Supreme Court directed that since notice issued to advocate in question had been returned unserved, therefore fresh notice should be issued to him.
- ----S. 3---Bar council---Purpose---Code of conduct for advocates---Bar existed for the purpose of ensuring access to and delivery of justice---Bar was also meant to stand up for upholding the rule of law, but it could discharge these functions only if its members abided by their code of conduct and were subjected, like everyone else, to the rule of law.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Headnotes / Summary
(Report of Secretary, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore)
S. 41
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 37(d)
Code of conduct for advocates
Misconduct by an advocate before the Trial Court
Disciplinary proceedings taken by the Punjab Bar Council against such advocate
Supreme Court observed that Art. 37(d) of the Constitution stipulated that "the State shall ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice", but in the present case, it was apparent that there were hindrances placed before the Trial Court which resulted in denial of the said constitutional imperative; that the disciplinary mechanism of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1976 and the proceedings taken by the Punjab Bar Council, in the present case, against the advocate in question appeared, prima facie, to have fallen short of the standards set out for Advocates in the code of conduct prescribed under the said Act
Supreme Court held that it was inter alia, for such reasons that court would like to examine the law (on the subject) and, in the light thereof the decision of the Punjab Bar Council Tribunal
Supreme Court directed that since notice issued to advocate in question had been returned unserved, therefore fresh notice should be issued to him.
S. 3
Bar council
Code of conduct for advocates
Bar existed for the purpose of ensuring access to and delivery of justice
Bar was also meant to stand up for upholding the rule of law, but it could discharge these functions only if its members abided by their code of conduct and were subjected, like everyone else, to the rule of law. Khalid Umar, Assistant Secretary/Law Officer for Punjab Bar Council on Court's Notice.
Judgment & Decree
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, 1973". 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. MWA/R-3/SC Order accordingly.