SC says former AG’s ‘objectionable behaviour’ not conducive to dignity of bench, bar

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday explained that the “persistently objectionable behaviour” of senior counsel Irfan Qadir had compelled it to suspend his licence to practise law in order to maintain “the dignity and honour of the bench and the bar”.
Authored by Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja, a nine-page order issued on Friday said that Mr Qadir’s persistently belligerent attitude – he was involved in a bitter exchange with the bench during a hearing – displayed a pattern and a mindset that was not at all conducive to the honour and dignity of the court and the bar.
While hearing the matter regarding the controversial purchase of armoured personnel carriers (APCs) from Serbia worth Rs1.32 billion for the Sindh police, a three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Khawaja had issued a show-cause notice to the former attorney general, demanding an explanation why his licence to practise law at the court should not be cancelled.
In the detailed order, the court recalled that it had asked for an explanation of how Mr Qadir had been appearing in this case without a power of attorney letter from the advocate on record. But instead of submitting his explanation on March 26, Mr Qadir launched into a tirade, which had been recorded and placed on the record.
The court suspended Mr Qadir’s licence under Rule 6 of Order 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 with an observation that the provision of the rules has been violated by the senior counsel. The rules say that no advocate can appear to plead a case unless he is instructed by the advocate on record.
“Instead of acknowledging his shortcoming, Mr Qadir conducted himself in a manner which indicates that he has been guilty of misconduct and conduct which is unbecoming of an advocate,” the order explained.
Referring to the counsel raising his voice before the court, the order said, the court was compelled to note that this sort of behaviour was not conducive to the proper administration of justice and was also prohibited by the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973. It was quite apparent that the conduct displayed by Qadir was also violative of Order 4 Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, the order maintained.
To substantiate the findings regarding the counsel’s behaviour, the court also cited examples of previous cases such as the contempt case against property tycoon Malik Riaz on a petition filed by Chaudhry Moham­mad Ashraf Gujjar in 2013, the 2010 Bank of Punjab case against Haris Steel, Dr Arsalan Iftikhar’s case against Malik Riaz in 2012 and television anchor Hamid Mir’s case of 2012, where Mr Qadir appeared as a counsel for different parties and said these cases showed that he had made a habit of indulging in misconduct or conduct unbecoming of an advocate.
The court also ordered the inspector general of police Sindh to justify engaging a private counsel and paying Rs2 million in professional fees to Mr Qadir instead of defending themselves through the office of the Sindh advocate general.
Meanwhile, reacting to the court’s decision, Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) Executive Committee Chairman Ahsan Bhoon announced that both the council and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) would summon an All-Pakistan Lawyers’ Conference in mid-April in Lahore to chalk out a future strategy to deal with such cases.
After a joint meeting of the executive committees of PBC and SCBA, Ahsan Bhoon told reporters that the committee had decided to demand the federal as well as the provincial legislators to vest the authority of suspending the licence of lawyers on misconduct exclusively to PBC as well as the provincial bar councils.
As the Supreme Judicial Council under Article 209 of the Constitution is the only forum to consider complaints against judges, the lawyers bodies should only be entrusted with the job to deal with the grievances against advocates.
A delegation of senior lawyers and members of the two prestigious bodies will also meet Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk with a request to consider amending Supreme Court rules in this regard, Mr Bhoon said.