P L D 201 3 Balochistan 1
Before Qazi Faez Isa, C.J. and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, J
Dr. MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH ---Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
through Secretary, Islamabad ---Respondent
Constitutional Petition No.372 of 2007, decided on 6th November, 2012.
Constitution of Pakistan ---
----Art.204 ---Obstructing the court proceedings ---Strike by law officers ---Effect ---Court was
prevented from hearing petition, as well as large number of other cases, wherein Federation
was arrayed as party, because of intentional non -appearance by Federation's law officers ---
Cause of such non -appearance was Attorney General's personal grievance, which purportedly
occurred in Federal Capital ---Gripe of Attorney General held dispensation of justice to
ransom throughout Pakistan on 1 -10-2012 ---High Court declined to ignore such intentional
non-appearance by law officers, as it constituted violation of their statutory duties and could
also be categorized as obstructing, interrupting or preju dicing process of law ---High Court
took lenient view, as it was the first case of its kind and law officers might have been
pressurized to become party to illegal protest to secure their respective positions ---Deputy
Attorney General and Standing Counsel e lected not to work on 1 -10-2010, therefore, there
was no justification for them to be paid for that day ---High Court directed government to
deduct one day salary of the law officers and recommended Federal Government to treat at
par other law office rs of the country, who had boycotted court proceedings on 1 -10-2012 -
--Order accordingly.
Malik Sikandar Khan, Deputy Attorney General, Chaudhry Mumtaz Yousaf and Rauf
Atta, Standing Counsel.
Date of hearing: 1st November, 2012.
ORDER
QAZI FA EZ ISA, C J. ---In this petition the Government of Pakistan is the only
respondent and it was fixed for hearing on the 1st of October, 2012 when the office of the
Deputy Attorney General placed on record a "Press statement" received by fax from
telephone number 051 -9215852; the number indicates that it was set from Islamabad and
from an official telephone. On the 1st of October the case could not proceed because there
was no representation on behalf of the Government of Pakistan. The reasons for non -
appearance by the Deputy Attorney General and the two Standing Counsel employed by the
Federation in Balochistan, was disclosed in the Press Statement, which concluded in the
following terms:
"....as a mark of protest against the aforesaid order, decide d to boycott the proceedings
of the first half of the Supreme Court and all High Courts on Monday the 1st October, 2012."
The order referred to in the Press Statement was passed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the
27th of September, 2012.
2. In view of the fact that this court's work was disrupted and the public inconvenienced
we sought an explanation from Mr. Irfan Qadir, Attorney General for Pakistan, Malik
Sikandar Khan, Deputy Attorney General, Chaudary Mumtaz Yousaf, Standing Counsel and
Mr. Rauf A tta, Standing Counsel. On the 15th of October, 2012 Messrs Malik Sikandar
Khan, Chaudary Mumtaz Yousaf and Rauf Atta filed their joint explanation, wherein the
issuance of the Press Statement and placing thereof before this court was confirmed, and it
was stated, that:
".....the boycott was observed by all law officers of the Federal Government except
the Attorney General of Pakistan in the whole of country and in the four provinces for only
two hours peacefully."
3. That since the Attorney General did not submit his explanation we directed the
Attorney General to be present in court on the next date along with his explanation in terms
of order of the 1st of October, 2012. The Attorney General did not appear nor excused his
absence. He, however, did sen t a reply stating, that:
"The decision to boycott the court proceedings was taken by all the law officers
throughout Pakistan and not by the Attorney General Law Officers all over the country have
shown solidarity with the Attorney General against the c onduct of a Judge of the Supreme
Court...."
"It is of utmost relevance to mention that there have been countless strikes and
boycotts of a far greater magnitude by thousand of lawyers ... in the preceding years but no
one was ever asked to explain his c onduct."
"The Attorney General to say the least has a fundamental right to be treated at par
with all those lawyers who had actually boycotted court proceedings on scores of occasions
in the recent past."
".... the instant boycott for only two hours was a most dignified way of lodging an
extremely mild and silent protect...."
4. From the reply of the Attorney General the following emerges:
(1) The Attorney General was aggrieved by the conduct of an honourable Judge of the
Supreme Court;
(2) The decision to boycott court proceedings was taken because of the aforesaid
grievance;
(3) All the Federal law officers of the country had shown solidarity with the Attorney
General;
(4) Since lawyers had called strikes and not attended court proceedings in the preceding
years, therefore, the Attorney General, has a fundamental right to be treated at part with all
those lawyers; and
(5) The reason for the boycott of court proceedings was to lodge a protest.
5. The reply filed by the Attorney General an d the joint reply filed by the law officers
express no remorse or regret, for the inconvenience caused to the public of the wastage of tax
payers money that pays their salaries and other emoluments, nor offers any satisfactory
explanation about their failu re to perform their respective duties.
6. The reply of the Attorney General does not state whether he too boycotted court
proceedings, but he does acknowledge the solidarity shown by all the law officers of the
Federation, and he endorses their protect. The solidarity by an equal or a superior is one
thing, but the purported solidarity by dependent subordinates quite another. The Attorney
General stands at the prinnacle in the hierarchy of the Federations' law officers; he could have
prevented the law off icers from boycotting court proceedings or reprimanded them, instead
he revels in the solidarity shown to him and his reply justifies the boycott.
7. The purported grievance of the Attorney General was the conduct of an honourable
Judge of the Supreme C ourt of Pakistan, but the court proceedings in Balochistan too were
intentionally disrupted. A person of the stature of the Attorney general for Pakistan ought to
know that the law provides a methodology to redress grievances, which, needless to state, is
not by boycotting court proceedings. Instead of adopting a legal path to redress his purported
grievance, a strike call was given, akin to one by a trade union.
8. The strike call was sought to be justified by stating that strikes have been called by
lawyers in the preceding years, therefore, the Attorney General, has a fundamental right to be
treated at par with all those lawyers. The analogy is superficial and flawed. The Attorney
General cannot equate his individual grievance with lawyers protesting a gainst a dictator,
who had removed superior court judges because they refused to take an oath of personal
loyalty to him in violation of the Constitution of Pakistan. By equating protests and strikes at
the desecration of the Constitution with a petty pers onal grievance, is, to say the least, inapt,
and egotistical.
9. Moreover, strikes by lawyers cannot be equated with striking paid functionaries of the
State. Private lawyers are engaged by their clients and thus accountable to them, whereas the
Attorney General and law officers are paid by the State, and accountable to the people of
Pakistan. To disregard the distinction would be neglectful of the Constitution of Pakistan and
contravene the provisions of the Central Law Officers Ordinance, 1970.
10. This court was prevented from hearing this constitutional petition, as well as large
number of other cases, wherein the Federation was arrayed as a party, because of the
intentional non -appearance by the Federation's law officers. The cause of such non -
appe arance was the Attorney General's personal grievance, which purportedly occurred in
Islamabad. The gripe of the Attorney General held dispensation of justice to ransom
throughout Pakistan on the 1st of October, 2012.
11. We had called upon Mr. W.N. Kohli , Advocate to assist the court on the conduct of
the Attorney General and the law officers and he was of the opinion that such conduct could
be deemed to, "obstruct or interrupt or prejudce the process of law" and thus constituted
contempt of court. We had also noted in the order dated 1st October, 2012, that, the Attorney
General is the ex officio Chairman of Pakistan Bar Council, which has enacted the 'Canons of
Professional Conduct and Etiquette', and reproduced the following relevant provisions from
the said Canons".
* "It is the duty of an advocate to maintain towards the Court a respectful attitude, not
for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial offices, but for the maintenance of its
supreme importance."
* "An Advocate should not comm unicate or argue privately with the Judge as to the
merits or a pending cause and he deserves rebuke and denunciation for any advice or attempt
to gain from a Judge special consideration or favour. A self -respecting independence in the
discharge of profess ional duty, without denial or diminution of the courtesy and respect due
to the Judge's station is the only proper foundation for cordial, personal and official relations
between the Bench and the Bar."
* "It is the duty of the Advocates to appear in Co urt when a matter is called and it is not
so possible, to make satisfactory alternative arrangements."
The reply of the Attorney General ignores the above provisions form the Canons of
Professional Conduct and Etiquette. The illegal use of the official telephone, used for
transmitting the strike call throughout Pakistan, was also not addressed.
12. That instead of attending to the above mentioned matters the Attorney General,
audaciously states that, "an endeavor is being made by the Chief Justice of a Provincial High
Court to unnecessarily rope in the Attorney General." The statement is factually incorrect.
His explanation was sought by a Division Bench of the High Court in judicial proceedings,
and not by the Chief Justice alone or in his administrat ive capacity. It is expected that the
highest law officer of the Federation would know the trite distinction. Since the grievance of
the Attorney General prompted the boycott, which delayed the dispensation of justice to the
people of Balochistan, his per sonal attachment and the roping in comment is uncalled for
and does not behoove the high office of the Attorney General. We however demonstrate
restraint and ignore his rudeness, and restrict ourselves to addressing the issue of not
attending court proce edings by the law officers.
13. The Attorney General (a) was directed to appear but did not do so, (b) sent a reply
which ignored some of the matters noted in our order dated 1st October, 2012, (c) elected
instead of make disparaging remarks, (d) conduct the misuse of an official Islamabad
telephone and (e) overlooked the provisions of the Canons of Professional Conduct and
Etiquette, as he failed to maintain a respectful attitude towards the court, and endorsed the
boycott of court proceeding by his subo rdinate/law officers, in contravention of the said
Canons, by failing, "to appear in Court when a matter is called". The Attorney General by his
conduct undermined the dignity of his office and the office of the Chairman of Pakistan Bar
Council. The Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette are derided when the Chairman
himself disregards them. Under such circumstances his conduct should be brought to the
attention of the President and Government of Pakistan. It would also be appropriate to bring
the ma tter to the attention of the Members of the Pakistan Bar Council.
14. As regards the matter of the intentional non -appearance by law officers the same
cannot be ignored as it constitutes a violation of their statutory duties and could also be
categorized as obstructing, interrupting or prejudicing the process of law. However, since this
is the first case of its kind that we are aware of, and as the said law officers may have been
pressurized to become party to the illegal protest to secure their respectiv e positions, we are
inclined to take a lenient view. Admittedly, the Deputy Attorney General and the Standing
Counsel elected not to work on the 1st of October, 2012, therefore there is no justification
for them to be paid for that day; consequently, we direct that one day salary of the
Federations' law officers in Balochistan be deducted. The Government of Pakistan may also
consider treating at par the other law officers of the country, who had boycotted court
proceeding on the 1st of October, 2012.
15. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the President and Prime Minister
of Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Law is directed to circulate this
order to all the Federation's law officers and to caution them against striking or resorting to
other illegal action in future.
MH/107/Q Order accordinglThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.