ISLAMABAD:
Like Pakistan’s parliamentary elections, elections within the superior bars have increasingly become a source of contention over the past several years.
Once an internal professional exercise, it has now evolved into a series of regulatory and political confrontations across several provinces.
At present, several serious disputes remain unresolved regarding the selection of various bar associations. Questions are also being raised about the conduct of regulatory bodies for lawyers with allegations of bias in the resolution of electoral disputes.
Bar politics remains sharply divided between two dominant factions. The independent group – which has a majority in the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) and is widely regarded as the pro-state bar section – and the professional group, which has strongly opposed the 26th and 27th constitutional amendments.
The independent group’s majority in the PBC, the highest regulatory body of the legal community, gives it a decisive advantage in election-related disputes.
The latest controversy erupted after the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) elections held on Saturday.
The independent group has refused to accept the LHCBA result pending a forensic audit of the biometric system used in the election.
Meanwhile, the Election Board has announced the result declaring Professional Group candidate Babar Murtaza Khan as LHCBA President with a margin of three thousand votes.
Subsequently, the Punjab Bar Council, where the independent group also has a majority, suspended the Election Commission’s notification to the extent of the President’s result.
Both the groups have now agreed to form a committee headed by PBC vice-chairman Masood Chishti and Shafqat Chohan to conduct a forensic investigation into the biometric system. The committee’s first meeting is scheduled for Tuesday.
A similar dispute continues over the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) elections.
Wajid Gilani, backed by the pro-government lawyers section, has been declared the president of the IHCBA.
However, his opponent Ashraf Gujjar claims he won by nine votes and has challenged the result before the Islamabad Bar Council.
Gujjar is now accusing the council of not resolving the dispute quickly.
It is noteworthy that the majority of Islamabad Bar Council members supported Wajid Gilani during the election campaign.
Meanwhile, the Pakistan Bar Council has restrained the Sindh Bar Council from holding the Karachi Bar Council, which has already been delayed for three months.
A member of the trade group claims that the delay is intended to favor the executive board.
Aamir Nawaz Waraich, a staunch opponent of the 26th and 27th constitutional amendments, is considered to be the frontrunner to again become the president of the Karachi Bar Association.
According to critics, the board does not want him re-elected, which is why the election is being postponed.
‘Unlawful interference’
The most serious institutional confrontation, however, has arisen in Balochistan, where the Balochistan Bar Council (BBC) has formally accused the Pakistan Bar Council of overstepping its legal mandate and engaging in “unlawful interference” in provincial affairs.
The dispute centers on an order of the PBC Appeal Committee on January 14 upholding the uncontested election of the Quetta Bar Association.
The BBC maintains that the ruling circumvents statutory procedures, violates established legal norms and undermines the autonomy guaranteed to provincial bar councils under the Act.
The confrontation formally escalated when the BBC Secretary, on the instructions of his Deputy Chairman, sent a strongly worded letter to the Chairman of the PBC Appeal Committee Balochistan, registering an official protest against the committee’s decision to directly notify the President and Cabinet of the Quetta Bar Association.
It is learned that the BBC had earlier suspended the uncontested election of the Quetta Bar Association. The aggrieved party then approached the PBC Grievance Committee, which issued the impugned directive.
The BBC, led by the professional group, has already protested the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s decision to drop Balochistan High Court Additional Judge Ayub Tareen because of his brother’s political affiliation. In contrast, the PBC is led by the independent group.
In its letter, the BBC stated that the PBC Appeal Committee’s ruling was “without lawful authority, without jurisdiction, ultra vires the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973, and a flagrant intrusion into the exclusive statutory domain of the BBC.”
“The power to supervise, regulate and notify elections and officers of Bar Associations rests solely and exclusively with the Provincial Bar Council. The Appellate Committee has no legal mandate to notify officers, assume administrative control or override the statutory functions of the Balochistan Bar Council.”
“The impugned act amounts to usurpation of statutory powers and is therefore void in the eyes of law. The Bar Council of Balochistan is a self-contained, independent and self-regulating statutory institution. Any attempt to interfere in its internal administration, election control, notification process or disciplinary domain is illegal, unconstitutional and unacceptable,” the letter said.
The BBC further argued that the January 14 order constituted a direct attack on institutional autonomy and set a dangerous precedent.
“Furthermore, it is on record that the alleged botched election process in the Quetta Bar Association is and has been under serious legal and procedural scrutiny due to several deficiencies including verification of voters’ list, eligibility of candidates, approval of dues, neutrality and legal composition of the election board and compliance with mandatory Bar Council rules.”
“Until and unless these legal requirements are fully met, no notice can legally be issued. The Appeals Committee cannot force the Balochistan Bar Council to approve or legitimize a process that is legally dubious and under investigation,” the BBC said.
The letter emphasized that politics, group affiliations, personal loyalties and outside pressures must remain outside of the practice of law, arguing that law firms are not political arenas.
It warned that any perception of political maneuvering or favoritism seriously damages the credibility of the legal profession and protested that the PBC Appeals Committee passed its order without giving the BBC an opportunity to be heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice and due process.
The BBC has formally warned the appeals committee against further interference, stating that any continued intrusion into its lawful domain will force it to seek appropriate remedies in a competent forum to ensure its autonomy and institutional integrity.
