Background
Disciplinary measures were brought against two senior lawyers — Shabbir Hussain Gigyani and Ali Azim Afridi — by various bar councils.
The PBC (Pakistan Bar Council) suspended Gigyani’s licence because he represented a police officer in a contested murder case, even though the Peshawar High Court Bar Association had passed a resolution advising lawyers against taking such cases.
Afridi’s licence was also suspended by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council (KPBC) for attending court during a strike called by the bar associations.
Gigyani and Afridi both lodged petitions in the Peshawar High Court (PHC), stating that the suspensions were unconstitutional and arbitrary and that they violated the lawyers’ rights to practice and access the courts.
Court Proceedings
These petitions were heard by a two-judge bench composed of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Wiqar Ahmad.
The court ordered the PBC and KPBC to justify their actions.After reviewing the arguments and records, the PHC declared the suspensions “without lawful authority” and set them aside on October 18, 2025.
Key Legal Findings
Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The court found that the suspensions imposed on the lawyers constituted a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 10A, 14, 18, and 25 of the Constitution, which include the rights to equality, due process, and the right to engage in a lawful profession.
Lack of Jurisdiction:
The PHC pointed out that the PBC and KPBC exceeded their statutory authority. Any disciplinary action in relation to lawyers must strictly follow the provisions of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act of 1973 and associated regulations.
Interference with Right to Practice:
The bench opined that, as soon as a lawyer is enrolled, the council has no right to prevent them from appearing and pleading before any court, no matter the council resolution or the wilful collective boycott.
Client’s Rights Affected:
The decision goes on to state that suspending a lawyer from appearing in court directly violates the client’s right to legal representation and a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 10-A.
Wider Implications
The ruling confirms that strike calls or resolutions from bar associations are not compulsory for individual lawyers.
This illustrates the necessity for bar councils to be transparent regarding the exercise of their disciplinary functions legally and to avoid irrational, non-legal, and politically oriented actions.
The judgment embodies the strengthening of the rule of law, the indifference of the legal profession to the politics of the practice, and the lack of punitive actions concerning professional disagreements.
Here, the judgment advances the principle of access to justice because, with their actions, bar associations must be cognizant of the fact that boycotts and bans affect litigants and the administration of justice.
Reactions:
In the legal community, the Peshawar High Court judgment is regarded as a milestone ruling on the legal profession’s arbitrary suspension and legal professional independence.
Concerns about the ruling starving bar councils from enforcing their collective discipline have been passed on from some bar leaders. This is one of the many issues that will continue to grow legal community discourse.
Conclusion:
In Pakistan’s legal profession, the Peshawar High Court represents a crucial landmark in the legal profession’s independence, refraining from blocking the practice of law while merely administrative and political means are leveraged. No resolutions of any bar associations are permitted to ignore the rights of any individual, due process, and collective actions. This will, in all likelihood, be a guiding principle in any matter that involves the rule of law, professional independence, and the justice system.Essentially, it re-establishes equilibrium which existed between the authority of the discipline and the discretion of the individual. This serves as a reminder to the professionals as well as the members of the professional bodies of the fact that professional discipline, in whatever shape or form, has to be within the framework of lawful authority.
