02/06/2026
In Peshawar High Court Bar Association v. Shabbir Hussain Gigyani & others (F.C.P.L.A. Nos. 379, 380, 384 & 389 of 2025, decided on 31.03.2026), the Federal Constitutional Court upheld the Peshawar High Court’s judgment and dismissed the petitions challenging the restoration of the licenses of advocates Shabbir Hussain Gigyani and Ali Azim Afridi. The Court settled three important constitutional and legal questions. First, it held that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199(1)(c) is exceptionally broad and extends against “any person”, including private individuals, corporate bodies, autonomous entities, and regulatory institutions such as Bar Councils whenever enforcement of fundamental rights is involved. Relying upon the constitutional history of Articles 170 of the 1956 Constitution, Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution, and precedents such as the Pakistan Olympic Association case, the Court ruled that Article 199(1)(c) is not confined to governmental authorities and may be invoked wherever fundamental rights are infringed. Secondly, the Court held that suspension of advocates’ licenses for representing an accused person or for appearing before courts during a strike violated the advocates’ fundamental right to practice their profession under Article 18 of the Constitution. Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the Court observed that any restriction on professional freedom must serve a compelling public interest and be narrowly tailored; however, preventing a lawyer from defending an accused person violates the constitutional right to counsel and fair trial under Articles 10 and 10-A, while punishing a lawyer for appearing during a strike is unlawful because lawyers have no legal right to boycott courts and such strikes undermine litigants’ fundamental right of access to justice. Thirdly, the Court endorsed the High Court’s findings regarding jurisdictional defects in the disciplinary proceedings, holding that the KPK Bar Council’s appellate and executive bodies had acted without lawful authority. The Court emphasized that Bar Councils possess regulatory powers but cannot exercise them arbitrarily in a manner that curtails constitutional freedoms. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, the impugned judgment was affirmed, and the Court reinforced the principles that fundamental rights are enforceable against both public and private actors, every accused has the right to counsel of choice, lawyers cannot be penalized for performing their professional duties, strikes by lawyers are illegal, and professional regulatory bodies remain subject to constitutional scrutiny when their actions infringe fundamental rights.
