(IN THE WRIT JURISDICTION) Constitution Petition No. D-_ L434 _ ot 202s ‘= Ghazi & Magsi, borristers, Advocates & Legal Consultants, Otige No. 112, 1* Floor, Gifton Centre, Khayaban-e-Roomi, Block V, Clifton, Karachi j IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI | House No. 85/514- _ Madrassah Road, Quetta-Cantt, Quetta, Balochistan ‘Mr. Syed Danish Ghazi, Advocate Son of Syed Afzal Ghazi, Muslim, adult, | Havi | M/s, Ghazi & Magsi, Barristers, Advocates & Legal Consultants, | | Offide No. 112, 1* Floor, i Clifton Centre, Khayaban-e-Roomi, \ | Block V, Clifton; Karachi Resident of: Houje No. 14-B, Korongi Road, Phase I, DH. on VERSUS 1. Karachi Bar Association Thrpugh its General Secretary, Shuahda-e-Sindh Building, “ i comm, | | | | | chi. py singh Bar Council, 1 jugh its Chairman, ‘ist Floor, Old Annexe Building, Court of Sindh, : | io Karachi. | Scanned with CamScanner+. Ministry of Law and Justice, Through its Secretary, Block S & R, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad 4. Law, Parliamentary Affairs, & Criminal Prosecution Department, Government of Sindh, ‘Though the Seceretary, Sindh Assembly Building, Napier Quarter, Karachi. 5, Leamed District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central), Through Registrar, ity Court Compound, Karachi. 6. Learned District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (West), Through a, City Court Compound, Karachi. 8, Learned District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (East), Through Registrar, ’ City Court Compound, : Karachi. .. RESPONDENTS: con: |ON PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 1¢ OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 197: Being akgrieved and dissatisfied by the arbitrary, ultra-vires, and ill-conceived and vllaychil:safuost- 2 th Respondents No. 1 to 5 to ‘accept the Vakalal ymas/Memos of Appearance of the Petitioners without verification in terms of the impugned decision through the impugned notice dated 10.03.2023, the Pe foners above named, having locus standi, but Ho other alternate ot elficacicus remedy available to them under the law, beg to submit as under: (Copy of impugned) notice dated 10.03.2023 is annexed herewith as annexure ‘A’) | Scanned with CamScannerL PARTIES 1. The Petitioner No. 1 is a practicing, advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan whose majority of practice takes place before this Henourable Court as well as the District and Sessions Court of Karachi which are under the administration of the Respondents No. 5 to 8. The Petitioner No. ~ 1 hails from the Province of Balochistan, where he was originally enrolled as and Advocate of the High Court with the Balochistan Bar Couneil and was given the Roll No. 67-BBC-Quetta, Thereafter the Petitioner No. 1 practiced law in Karachi and had obtained membership with the Sindh High Court Bar Association, Karachi. Thereafter, the Petitioner No. 1 was enrolled as advocate of the Supreme Court in the year 2019. As such the Petitioner is entitled to practice law/advocacy and appear tefore all courts and tribunals in Pakistan. It is worth mentioning that the Petitioner is not and never has been a member of the Respondent No. 1 association. (Copy of Business Card , Balochistan Bar Council Card, Pakistan Bar Council Card and Membership Card the of Sindh High Court Bar Assocation, Karachi of the Petitioner No. 1 is annexed herewith as | annexure ‘B’ to ‘B-&/) | | 2. That the Petitioner No. 2isa practicing Advocate of the High Cort whose rhajrity of practice takes place before this Honourable Court as well as D the’ District and Sessions Court"of Karachi’ whicil are under the administration of the Respondents No, 5 to 8, The Petitioner No. 2 hails ffom Karachi and was enrolled withthe Respondent No. 2 with the rolle | No, 13558/HC/KHI and is currently entitled to appeal and practice before | all the courts and tribunals it Pakistan except the Honourable Supreme Court. The Petitioner No. 2is|a member of the Respondent No. 1 as well as the Sindh High Court Bar Association, Karachi. a (Copy of Business Card, Sindh Bar | | Councit Card, Sindh High Court Bar | | Association, Karachi Ca rd and Karachi st Bar Association Card of the Petitioner | No.2 is annexed herewith as annexure ‘C’ | t0'C-&!) Scanned with CamScanner; 3. | scintfan mandi hetredhem amet) J enrolied under the Legal Practitioner and Bar Council act, 1973 8» practice ow. It is imperative to note that the Respondent No 1 is NOT a regulator of the professional of law, nor does it have any competency with respect to the administration of the courts oF aulminsstration of the poste system Rather the Respondent No. 1 was formed with purpose of working cowards the wellare of the advocates of Karachi and for no other purpose whatsoever, In this regard, the Respondent No.1 is not endowed with any regulatory competency or power whatsoever and at most it can be considered a collective bargaining agent with respect to issues pertaining, to judiciary. 4. The Respondent No. 2 is the regulator of the legal profession and with ad respect to advocates enrolled under the Legal Practitioner and Bar Council act, 1973 to the extent of the province of Sindh only. In this regard, the Respondent No. 2 administers the enrolment of advocates in the Province of Sindh through education, examination and further governance of the practice of such enrolled advocates. It is clarified that the Respondent No. pe no pee a web rarest ere directly ot indirectly, of the judicial system. 5. The Respondents No. 3 & 4 are the: Federal |and Provincial bodies/ departments, respectively, governing the administration of justice ‘nd the courts in Pakistan, and particularly in Sindh. In this regard, the Respondents No. & 4 are competes to recommend necessary legislation 10 ensure efficacious modalities ae created and enforced to ensure acess, 8 justice to the public-atlarge. Moreover, it is within the ambit of the ricky hi SA ln jae seven plocedues ond oly to Protect the interests of litigants who are before the Honourable Courts in 1 Sindh, and particularly, in Karachi. 6. ‘The Resporidents No. 5 to 8 are the respective administrative officers of the respective four district courts of Karachi, being East, West, Central and | Shuth, The courts under the supervision and administrations Respondents | No: to 8, being the District Courts of Karachi or the Karachi City Courts, | have chosen to adopt, accept and obey the infirmed, itegat and arbitrary | dkcision of the Respondent No, 1 pertaining to verification of vakalatnamas as communicated by way of the impugned notice dated | | 10.03.2023, \ Scanned with CamScanner@ IL MATERIAL FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES: 7.1 has tramgpired that, co an wentinchoneel dint, without referring the cotter to the General Bely of the Respondent No 1/Amer revvssitated rules and bylaws of the Resporient No 1 the managing: committee and executive officers of the Resporstent No. 1 hac! decisled that “No Vakalatnama will be entertained in Courts without KBA issued igitized Vakalatnama Verification” & It was further communicated by way of the impugned notice dated 10.03.2023 that in order for an advocate’s Vakalatnama or Memo of Appearance to be accepted by Honourable Courts digital verficetion was ‘necessitated Hence, in absence of verification of the Petitioner's above named were barred from making appearance or pleading on behalf of litigants before the District and Sessions Courts of Karachi. 9, Soon after'the issuance of the above notice, the' Petitioner No. 1. has incidentally attempted to file Vakalatnama on behalf of several clients/ litigants in several civil and criminal matter before several courts under the administration of the Respondents No. 5 to 8. However, upon attempting to make appearance in the said matters, the Petitioner No, 2 was informed by the court staff that he was required to have his Vakalatnama/Memo of Appearance verified by the Respondent No. 1 in thems of the impugned notice. 10. Upon demanding to see any official notification of the Respondents No. 3 cor 4 or the ‘Respondents No. 5 to 8, it appeared that none was available. Rather, the court staff continued to rely upon the impugned noti¢e in a shanner as if it was obligatory upon said court to obey the ame, Despite the ‘embarrassment faced by the Petitioners, in order to cary ‘out the duty. awed to ther clients and so as to protect their client's interests, the Petitioners had approached the information desk ofthe District Courts for obtaining necessary verification of Vakalatnama, | 11. Upon approaching | the concerned desk for obthiing ‘digitized eccation’ certificate it transpired that the Petitioner No. 1 could not iheive the Same as no data for him was on the record. It came to light that the verification was solely based on the active membership lst of the Respondent No.1. In this regard, it appeared that only] members having, Scanned with CamScanneractive and subsisting membership with the Respondent Nov 1 were | fe ae ee (Copy of Sample Digital Verification Centifiente is anneed herewith as annexure 12 Due to the impediment created by the Respondents No. 1 and 5 to 8, it transpired that the Petitioner No. 1 has essentially been barred from undertaking practice and making appearance before the District Courts at Karachi, As such the Respondent No. 1 in complicity with the Respondents No. 5 to 8 have created circumstances, whereby the chtitlement of the Petitioners to appear before the District Courts of = Karachi has been curtailed. i L 13, Having no other efficacious or alternate or adequate remedy available ‘under the law the Petitioner above named seeks to agitate the following rounds before this Honourable Court: Ul. GROUNDS OF PETITION: a. Under section 22 of the Legal Practitioner and Bar Council at, 1973 the Petitioners are both nied to appeat before the Distt Courts at Karachi a4 a matter of right without impediment, More specifically, the Petitioner No 1 is entitled to appear before all courts and tribunals of Pakistan " ijeluding the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Whereas the Petitioner No. 2is entitled appear before all courts and tribunals of Pakistan save for the Supreme Court. As such, the impediment created by the Respondents No. | ! 1and5 108, has violated section 22 Legal Practitioner and Bar Council act, | 1973, reproduced below: | | Section 22 of the Legal Practitioner and Bar Council act, 1973: provided in this Act, no person shall be entitled to practice the profession | | \ ' | “22. Right of advocates to practice-(1) Save as otherwise | Bften ues hein aden, | ! (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Revles made thereunder ’ right to practice throughout Pakistan nd to appear, act \ (a) an advocate of the Supreme Court shall be entitled as of | Scanned with CamScanner/3. ’ fend pa bere ey Curt er Trio any ube J euthority in Pabisten; | o con evocate of High Court hall be titel sof right bo Practice Urreuphout Pelisten and to appear, act end plead before any Court, Tribunal or any Judicial authority in . Dolistan except the Supreme Court, and (©) any other advocate shall be entitled as of right to practice throushout the Province [and Islamabad Caputal Territory] where he is enrolled to appear, act and plead before any : Court, Tribunal or any Judicial authority in such Province ' bend iad Cpl Teeter: sh te High — b fia father contend that per subeection of econ 72 ofthe Legal factitioner, and Bar Council act, 1973, reproduced below, further pfovided that in order for an advocate to act as a pleader for any litigant before any court before his is entitled to appear, here merely needs to document of authorization/Memo of Appearance/Valkalatnama before sdid court. in this regard, there is no provision under the legislation or any le framed thereunder, which permits the created of any verification régime, Moreover, even if there was any such regime under the sdbstantive law, the Respondent No.1 is not competent to administer or cetforce the same. | Subsection (3) of Section 22 of the Legal Pracitioner and Bar | | mncil act, 1973 | | ‘ | | (3) No advocate shall appear or act for any person in any Court or tribunal unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or his recognized agent or ‘some other person duly authorized by him to make such appointrient, and such document has been filed in such Court or tribunal: ’ | | | . Similarly, Rie 40 of the Sindh Civil Court Rules simply provide that r Vakalatnama should be in the form prescribed * appendix. ’B’ Scanned with CamScannerFurthermort Rule 41 of the Sindh Civil Court Rules, reproduced as under, (o provides that 2 pleader/adwocate only needs to ensdorse by way of his own signature, his acceptance. the date of such acceptance andl the name of the person from whom it is received. It is further stipulated that not Vakalatnama should be accepted in absence of said endorsement. Im this regard, there is no provision under the law, which requires any further verification of a Vakalatnama other than the endorsement of and advocate himself. Hence, and advocate ts fully competent under the Civil Court Poles and the law to endorse and verify his or her own Vakalatnama. As such, there is simply no provision under the law which requires digital verification of Vakalatnama and that too at the best of the Respondent No. 1, As such the insist on verification, is patently illegal 41 of the Sindl “41. Execution and attestation of vakalatnama:~ (1) Execution of a | nakalatnama by a party shal in amy case where a party is ilterate, be by | axing his thumb impression thereon and shal be attested by a person in whose presence such thumb-impression is affixed and who shall certify such fact on the vakalatnama under hs signature, 2) Endorsement on vakalatnama:~ Every pleader filing a vakalatnama shal endorse thereon under his ou signature the ollowing particulars - : S @ his acceptance and the date thereof, (i his address for service; and (iii) the name of the person from whom it is received. (8) No pleader shall be entitled to act under a vakalainama which is not endorsed as herein provided.” | . In the same manner as above, Order Ill of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 {so does not require any further verification of Vakalatnama of memo of appearance, In this regard, Rue 4 of the Order Il ofthe Civil Procedure le 1908} reproduced below, provides that a pleader, only requires sites Soca of appointment as pleader. Farther, the Rube 4 stbpulates that a Memo of Appearance need only contain the names ofthe parties to the suit, the name of the party on behalf whom hé appears and the name ofthe counsel whois authorized to appar. There is simply no) \ requirement under the Civil Procedure Code 1908 which could Scanned with CamScannerpease duns viomene (67 “court before he is entutled to appear Rule 4 of Order II of the Civil Procedure Code, 190% Appointment of pleader, (1) Ne plonter shall act for amy person in ey Court, unless he hes been eppetited for the purpove by suck person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by o* under # powerof-atiorney to make such eppointment, ' (2) Every such appointment shall be filed in Court anal shall be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by @ teriting signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, avd filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client. 6 ‘No pleader who has been engoged for'the purpose of pleading | only shall plead on behalf of ary party, unless he has filed in Court a | memorandum of appearance signed by himself and stating ~ (a) the names ofthe partes tothe suit, 4 @) the name of the party for whom he appears, and (the name of the person by whom he is authorized to appear: | e. is apparent from the above, that decision taken by the Respondent No.1 | and being enforced by the Respondents No. 5 to 8, have’ no basis in substantive aw or legislation whatsoever, {. Its contended thatthe Respondents No. 1 and Respondents No.5&8 | have essentially created a system whereby in order {© practice in the istrict Courts of Karachi, a counsel, irrespective of his home station or cther memberships in any other association, is required to become « njember of the Respondent No, 1, In this regard, iteontended that neither Scanned with CamScannerThe Singh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rates, 2002, nor the Legal Practitioner, and Bar Council act, 1973 rexguive the Petitioners to obtain membership of any bor assceiation other than the coe situated where they immediately practice In this regant, the Petitioner Now 1, being from Talochistan mented only to obtain members from the Quette Bar Association, where he commenced his practice, of the Sinath High Court Tar Assoctation Karachi, where he currently predominantly practices. Coentially, the Respondent No. 1, have created « situation where they have deterred of not barred non-members from practicing in the District Courts of Karachi. This is discriminatory, and completely arbitrary not to mention in violation of the law. h. The Petitioner No. 1, who hails from Balochistan, is entitled to enjoy all such rights afforded to his counterparts in Karachi without impediment. Dut to enforce a system of verification of vakalatnama on the basis of members, is high violative ofthe Petitioner No. 1's fundamental rights, i. Ih this same regard, the Petitioner No. 2, who is a member of the Sindh High Court Bar Association, is no longer obligated to maintain his membership with the Respondent No. 1, but in order to maintain his practice, he 15 now required fo maintain Ns membership with the Respondent No 1 ‘As such, the Petitioner No.2 is being coerced in to an udertaking which voluntary in nature. | | | j. The Responiient No. 1 is.NOT in any way competent to govern the conduct of advocates duly enrolled'by a provincial bar council. Rather, such conduct is to be regulated by a.Bar Council. Moreover, creation of ahy new obligations, so far as it is not already required ‘under the law, is exclusive mandated of the Respondent No. 3, Hence, the Respondent k, ‘The Resporitient No. 1 is merely an association entrusted with the welfare of voluntary members. I it is in no way competent to direct the | Respondents No. § to 8 in any manner whatsoever. In this same regard, | the Respondents have acted in contravention to the law ty acceding to the | decision of the Respondent No. 1 and implementing the system of Digital fakalatnama Verfication, | ; \ j | | Scanned with CamScannerThat the pttioner seks permanant apie farther press atte tone (2 J of bearing, IV. PRAYERS & RELIEFS SOUGHT: In consideration of the above facts ancl grounds itis most respectfully prayed thot this Honourable Court may be pleased to: A. Declare the refusal ofthe courts under the supervision and administration of the Respondents No. 5 to 8 to accept the Vakalatnama/Memo of Appearance of the Petitioners without verification by the Respondent No. as illegal. : B. Declare the imposition of Vakalatnama Verification by the courts under the supervision and administration of the Respondents No. 5 to 8 as ultra- Viries and illegal. C. Declare the’ adoption of impugned Decision of the Respondent No. 1/ Immpugned Notice dated 10032023 to’ the extent of Verification of Vakalatnamas by the Respondents No. 5 to 8 as legal and without any byt authority. D. Declare that the Respondent No. 1 is not competent to teers with the conduct of advocates enrolled under the Legal Practitioner and Bar Council act, 1973. | E srt te deco fred ot inpued mie tang | Verification of Vakalatnamas to be void in absence of reference to a General Body Meeting of the Respondent No. 1. Fr Permanent restrain the: Respondents No, 1 jo 5 from requiring Nestcaton of Vakalatnama from advocates entitled to appear beforé the . Dist Courts in terms Section 22 of the Legal easier and Bar | Council act, 1973., 4 | | ; | . Grant any father, better or consequential rie that|this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper. H. ie ‘cost, Scanned with CamScanner