2015 SCMR 810 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present

2015 S C M R 810 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Jawwad S. Khawaja, Ejaz Afzal Khan and Maqbool Baqar, JJ Syed MAHMOOD AKHTAR NAQVI---Applicant versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others---Respondents C.M.A. No.592-K of 2013 in S.M.C. No.16 of 2011, C.M.A. No.423-K of 2014, Criminal O. P. 24-K of 2014, C.M.A. No.634-K of 2014, C.M.A. No.359-K of 2014, Criminal O. P. Nos.25-K and 26-K of 2014, C.M.A. No.360-K, 373-K, 382-K, 389-K and 394-K of 2014, decided on 26th March, 2015. ((For taking action against the Government of Sindh through IGP, Sindh on entering into contract for purchase of the APC Armed Personnel Carrier at an exorbitant rate without calling open tender in deviation of Sindh Public Procurement Rules) Supreme Court Rules, 1980--- ----O. IV, Rr. 6, 15 & 30---Advocate Supreme Court---Misconduct---Conduct unbecoming of an advocate---Appearance in a case without instructions or 'vakalatnama' of an Advocate-on-Record (AOR)---Interrupting court proceedings---Using loud and unbecoming tone in court--- Suspension of practicing licence as an advocate of Supreme Court and notice to show cause as to why he should not be removed from practice as an Advocate of the Supreme Court---No authorization existed in favour of the Advocate Supreme Court in question, authorizing him to appear in the present case, and nor was there any 'vakalatnama' of an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) on behalf of the Provincial Inspector General of Police, whom the advocate in question was purportedly representing---Advocate in question had been appearing in the present case for the last twelve dates of hearing, and considering that he had no authorization from any Advocate on Record, it was apparent that O. IV, R. 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 had been violated- --Instead of acknowledging such shortcoming, advocate in question conducted himself in a manner which indicated that he had been guilty of misconduct and conduct which was unbecoming of an advocate---Advocate in question was asked to submit an explanation as to how without instructions or vakalatnama of an Advocate-on-Record (AOR), he had been appearing in the present case, but instead of submitting his explanation, he raised his voice, interrupted court proceedings and launched into a harangue and tirade---Such 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---Persistent objectionable behaviour of advocate in question provided good cause for taking strict action against him---Record of certain other cases showed that advocate in question had made it a habit to indulge in misconduct or conduct unbecoming of an advocate---Persistent acts on the part of advocate in question displayed a pattern and a mindset which was not at all conducive to the honour and dignity of the Court and the Bar---Fair, honest and ethical Bar was essential for dispensation of justice---Supreme Court observed that it had shown a lot of patience in dealing with the advocate in question but he had failed to uphold and maintain the dignity of his profession or the Court---Supreme Court thus suspended the practicing license of advocate in question in order to maintain the honour, respect and dignity of the Bar and the Court, and issued him a notice to show cause as to why he should not be removed from practice as an Advocate of the Supreme Court---Supreme Court directed the Provincial Inspector General of Police, to file copies of all relevant documents showing deliberations and justification for engaging a private counsel (advocate in question) and paying a large sum to him as professional fee instead of defending through the office of the Provincial Advocate General. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Gujjar v. Riaz Hussain 2013 SCMR 161; Bank of Punjab v. Haris Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2010 SC 1109; Arslan Iftikhar v. Riaz Hussain PLD 2012 SC 903 and Hamid Mir v. Federation of Pakistan Constitutional Petition No.105 of 2012 ref. Nemo for Applicant. Irfan Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court on Court's Notice. Meeran Muhammad Shah, Additional, A.-G. Sindh for Government of Sindh. Farooq H. Naek, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Chief Secretary. Ghulam Haider Jamali, IGP and Dr. Mazhar Ali Shah, AIG (Legal) on behalf of IGP, Sindh. Nemo for HIT. Date of hearing: 26th March, 2015. ORDER JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---When this case was called, we adverted to our previous order dated 12-3-2015. In that order we have noted the fact that there was no authorization in favour of Mr. Irfan Qadir authorizing him to appear in the case and nor was there any "vakalatnama" of an AOR on record on behalf of IGP Sindh. We can advert to our previous order wherein we had raised the query and asked the learned Additional Advocate General Sindh to inform us as to how and under what arrangement Mr. Irfan Qadir was representing the IGP Sindh. In our order, it has also been noted that Mr. Irfan Qadir had been appearing in this case for the last 12 dates of hearing. Considering that he has no authorization from any Advocate on Record, it is apparent that Rule 6 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 has been violated. The said Rule stipulates that "no Advocate other than an Advocate-on-Record shall appear or plead in any matter unless he is instructed by an Advocate-on-Record". Rule 15 of the said Order directs that "no Advocate other than an Advocate-on-Record shall be entitled to act for a party in any proceedings in the Court". Instead of acknowledging this shortcoming, Mr. Irfan Qadir conducted himself in a manner (discussed below) which indicates that he has been guilty of misconduct and conduct which is unbecoming of an Advocate. Through an earlier order we had provided an opportunity to Mr. Qadir to explain his position but he has chosen not to do so. 2. On 11-3-2015 we were constrained to note that when we commenced hearing of the case, "Mr. Irfan Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court purported to represent IGP, Sindh". When he was questioned as to whether Sindh Police was an entity recognized under Article 137 of the Constitution or the Rules of the Business of the Sindh Government under Article 139, instead of addressing the question, he raised his voice and starting saying loudly that he would not argue before this Bench. We were, therefore, compelled to note that this sort of behaviour is not conducive to the proper administration of justice and is also prohibited by the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. It is quite apparent that the conduct displayed by Mr. Irfan Qadir is also violative of Order IV, Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Irfan Qadir stated as noted above, that he would not be arguing this matter before the Court. Despite this he once again interrupted Court proceedings today and launched into a harangue and tirade which has been recorded and the Office has been directed to prepare a transcript of the recording and place it on record. The persistent objectionable behaviour of Mr. Irfan Qadir provides good cause for taking strict action against him however, for the sake of ensuring fairness we had also given him notices to explain his conduct which, as noted above, he has not availed. This was quite sufficient to justify issuance of a notice to Mr. Irfan Qadir under Order IV, Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules. The loud and unbecoming tone of his uncalled for and irrelevant interruptions can only be gathered from the audio recording. The Office shall save such recording as a part of the record. 3. Our staff have traced the record of some other cases from which it is apparent that Mr. Irfan Qadir may have been guilty of misconduct or conduct which is unbecoming of an Advocate. The first such case is of Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Gujjar v. Riaz Hussain (2013 SCMR 161). In the cited case, it has been held at the very outset that a query was made from the Attorney General [Mr. Irfan Qadir] as to "whether it would be possible for him to conduct the proceedings of this case, fairly, justly, honestly and in accordance with law when he at some stage remained counsel for the respondent [contemnor]". The reply of Mr. Irfan Qadir was that "inspite of that [he] would be able to conduct the prosecution of this case fairly, justly, honestly and in accordance with law". When the Court suggested that propriety demands that he should lay his hands off this case, Mr. Irfan Qadir replied by saying that "when he was on the Bench as a Judge of the Lahore High Court, he declined to hear one of the cases of the respondent on the said score but since the Attorney General being persona designata, is alone to conduct the proceedings in such matters, the fact that he at some stage remained counsel of the respondent can conveniently be ignored". The Court also had occasion to comment on the evident misconduct of Mr. Irfan Qadir as Attorney General by observing as to "how the Chief Justice of Pakistan could figure as a witness in the list of witnesses submitted by the Attorney General when he neither filed a complaint in his individual capacity nor submitted an affidavit". It was also noted by the Court that "even if it were so, the Chief Justice could not have been examined as a witness in view of the proviso to section 17 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, notwithstanding the desire of the contemnor to cross examine him".

Load more