IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH 
 
Civil Appeal No.1729 of 2019.  
(Against the order dated 02.10.2019 
passed by the Islamabad High Court, 
Islamabad in ICA No.37 of 2019).  
 
 
Mirza Muhammad Nazakat Baig.  
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
Versus 
 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry  
of Law & Justice, Islamabad and another. 
 
 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. M. Shahid Kamal Khan, ASC.  
 
For the Federation: 
Mr. Sohail Mehmood, DAG. 
 
Mr. M. Kassim Mirjat, AOR. 
 
For Pak. Bar Council: 
Mr. Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, ASC. 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR.  
 
Date of Hearing:  
 
28.01.2020. 
 
O R D E R   
 
 
 
IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.- This appeal with the leave of 
the Court arises out of a judgment of a Division Bench of the 
Islamabad High Court, Islamabad through which an Intra 
Court Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. The said 
ICA arose out of a judgment of a Single Bench of the same 
Court through which a constitutional petition filed by the 
Appellant was dismissed.  
 
Civil Appeal No.1729 of 2019. 
2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. 
 
Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide its 
order dated 30.10.2019 which for ease of reference is 
reproduced below: 
 
”It is contended by the learned counsel for the 
petitioner that Pakistan Bar Council is a Statutory 
body established under the Legal Practitioners and 
Bar Councils Act, 1973 and that such Bar Council 
registers the Bar Associations all over Pakistan, 
including the Supreme Court Bar Association and 
whatever the rules are framed for the Bar 
Associations, they are framed by the Pakistan Bar 
Council. He contends that Rule 9 of the Supreme 
Court Bar Association of Pakistan Rules, 1989, 
was amended by Notification of Pakistan Bar 
Council dated 18.08.2018 by which first proviso to 
clause (a) of Rule 9 was substituted by another 
proviso in which Islamabad and Rawalpindi were 
shown as one place among which the office of 
President of the Supreme Court Bar Association 
will be rotated. He contends that Islamabad is a 
Capital Territory while Rawalpindi is already part 
of the Province of the Punjab and thus these two 
cities cannot be clubbed together for providing a 
scat of one President rather Islamabad being a 
Capital Territory should have its own President 
and Rawalpindi being a part of Punjab should not 
be separated from it.  
 
2. The submissions made by the learned counsel 
for the petitioner needs consideration. Leave to 
appeal is granted to consider inter alia the above 
submissions of the learned counsel. The appeal 
will be herd on the available record, however, the 
parties are allowed to file additional documents. 
As the matter pertains to the Bar Association 
Affairs, office is directed 
to fix the 
same 
expeditiously.  
 
3. Notice be issued to the Attorney General for 
Pakistan under Order XXVIIA CPC. Notice be also 
issued to the Secretary, Supreme Court Bar 
Association. Petitioner is directed to implead 
Supreme Court Bar Association as one of the 
respondents and file amended title of the case in 
this regard within a period of one week.”   
 
3. 
 
The brief facts necessary for decision of this lis are 
that the appellant who is a member of the Supreme Court Bar 
Association filed a constitution petition before the Islamabad 
High Court challenging the vires of Rule 9 (a) of the Supreme 
Court Bar Association of Pakistan Rules, 1989. Through the 
said rule while granting the right of Presidency of the 
Civil Appeal No.1729 of 2019. 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supreme Court Bar Association to Islamabad Capital 
Territory on rotational basis, the territory of Rawalpindi was 
also bracketed with the Islamabad Capital Territory. The 
stance taken by the appellant was that Rule 9(a) was 
discriminatory inasmuch as the right of Presidency had been 
granted to every Province including Punjab, however, while 
Islamabad Capital Territory was also given such privilege, the 
area of Rawalpindi had been added with it which is a part of 
Punjab. Hence the amendment was discriminatory as a part 
of Punjab had been tagged with the Islamabad Capital 
Territory. On an objection was raised regarding competence 
and maintainability of a constitution petition in the matter. It 
was contended that the Supreme Court Bar Association of 
Pakistan Rules, 1989 were statutory in nature inasmuch as 
the rule in question was amended by the Supreme Court Bar 
Association, which amendment was subsequently notified by 
the Pakistan Bar Council. It was further argued that Pakistan 
Bar Council as well as Supreme Court Bar Association were 
statutory 
bodies 
owing 
their 
creation 
to 
the 
Legal 
Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 (“Act of 1973”). 
Hence a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan was competent. The learned 
Single Judge declined to interfere in the matter on the ground 
that the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 
provides for various fora to its members for raising their 
grievances. He concluded that an adequate and efficacious 
remedy was available to the Appellant under the Act of 1973. 
Further, the Appellant could have raised his grievance 
Civil Appeal No.1729 of 2019. 
4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
through the Islamabad Bar Council which he had failed to do. 
Therefore the petition was not maintainable and was 
dismissed in limine. In Intra Court Appeal, the learned 
Division Bench came to the conclusion that the Supreme 
Court Bar Association of Pakistan Rules, 1989 were non-
statutory and the Supreme Court Bar Association did not fall 
within the definition of “person” within the contemplation of 
Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan. It was further concluded that neither the Supreme 
Court Bar Association of Pakistan nor the Pakistan Bar 
Council fulfilled the requirements of the, “functionality rule” 
and as such were not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the 
High Court. The appellant being dissatisfied of the afore-
noted judgments has approached this Court and has more or 
less repeated the arguments made before and rejected by the 
High Court. 
      
 
4. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties 
and gone through the record.  
 
5. 
 
The appellant has challenged the amendment 
made by the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan in 
the Rules, 1989. The extract of the resolution whereby the 
amendment was made in the Rules of 1989 is as follows: 
 
“Amendments in Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Bar 
Association of Pakistan Rules, 1989:- 
 
(i) 
The words NWFP are proposed to be amended by the 
words Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Rule 9(a) ii, so that the 
name of the Province be amended in the light of the 
provisions of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic 
of Pakistan, 1973.  
 
Civil Appeal No.1729 of 2019. 
5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(ii) 
At the end of the first proviso to clause (a) of Rule 9, 
signs, 
figures 
and 
words, 
province, 
Islamabad/Rawalpindi may be added in the following 
manner:- 
 
i. 
Balochistan; 
ii. 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; 
iii. 
Punjab; 
iv. 
Sindh; 
v. 
Islamabad/Rawalpindi; and  
vi. 
Punjab.” 
 
6. 
 
A perusal of the afore-noted amendment shows 
that the territory of Islamabad and Rawalpindi has been 
added to the rotational Presidency mechanisms provided for 
the President-ship of the Supreme Court Bar Association. 
Rule 9(a) is designed to ensure that the Presidency of the 
Supreme Court Bar Association goes to all regions of Pakistan 
and is not monopolized by one region owing to numerical 
strength. In the first place we have been informed by the 
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Pakistan Bar 
Council as well as the Supreme Court Bar Association that 
the aforesaid amendment was tabled in the Annual General 
Meeting of the Association in which all members of the 
Association including members of the Islamabad Bar 
Association and the Rawalpindi Bar Association had a right to 
cast their votes and express their grievances (if any). 
Admittedly, the said resolution was passed without any major 
objection from any side. Further, it is clear and obvious to us 
that mechanism for redressal of such grievances is available 
under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. 
There is no denial of the fact that the said mechanism and 
alternate remedies have not been availed by the Appellant 
Civil Appeal No.1729 of 2019. 
6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
either directly or through the good offices of the Islamabad 
Bar Council.  
 
 
 
7. 
 
A bare reading of the provisions of the Legal 
Practitioners and Bar Councils Act shows that the Act 
provides for establishment of Bar Councils in the Provinces as 
well as the Islamabad Capital Territory. It deals with all 
matters relating to elections of office bearers, disciplinary and 
other professional matters, constitution of committees, their 
powers and other related and incidental matters. However, it 
is clear that other than the Attorney General for Pakistan 
being the ex-officio, Chairman Pakistan Bar Council and 
Advocates Generals of the Provinces and Islamabad Capital 
Territory being ex-officio, Chairman of the Provincial Bar 
Councils and Islamabad Capital Territory neither the 
Provincial 
nor 
the 
Federal 
Government 
exercise 
any 
administrative control over the affairs of the Pakistan Bar 
Council or the Provincial Bar Councils. Pakistan Bar Council 
is a statutory body which is autonomous and generates its 
own funds independently. The Government does not have any 
control over it. Likewise, the Islamabad Bar Council acts as a 
regulator for affairs of the Advocates in Islamabad Capital 
Territory, admits Advocates to practice before the said High 
Court and maintains rolls of such Advocates. The functions of 
the Council also inter-alia include initiating proceedings for 
misconduct against Advocates on its rolls and award 
punishment in such cases. That being so, neither the 
Respondent nor any of its constituents or committees can be 
Civil Appeal No.1729 of 2019. 
7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
regarded as persons performing functions in connection with 
the affairs of the Federation, Provinces or Local Authority 
within 
the 
contemplation 
of 
the 
Article 
199 
of 
the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. As such we are 
in no manner of doubt that Respondent No.2 is not amenable 
to the jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of Article 199 of 
the Constitution.  
 
8. 
 
The next question that needs to be addressed is 
whether the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan 
Rules, 1989 are statutory in nature which is yet another 
reason that correctly prevailed with the learned Division 
Bench of the High Court in recording a finding that the 
constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked against the 
Supreme Court Bar Association. This question came up for 
hearing before a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in 
the case of Abdul Sattar Chughtai Malik. v. Pakistan Bar 
Council through Secretary and another (PLD 2007 Lahore 
170). The following excerpt from the said judgment elaborates 
correctly interprets the law on the subject and is reproduced 
below: 
“8. The rules are not statutory in nature, therefore, 
any violation of the statutes, regulations or rules 
would not attract the Constitutional jurisdiction of this 
Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. In this 
context reference can be made to the cases of Dr. M. 
Afzal Beg v. University of Punjab and others (1999 
PLC (C.S.) 60), Khalid Hussain v. The Chancellor, 
(Governor of Punjab) and others (NLR 1995 CLJ 219), 
Muhammad Umar Malik v. The Muslim Commercial 
Bank through its President, Karachi and 2 others 
(1995 SCMR 453) and Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural 
Development Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD 1984 
SC 194).  
10. The Parliament is the law-making authority. It 
passes the Acts and empowers the Government under 
the relevant Act to make Rules for carrying on the 
business. A statute is the formal “expression” in 
Civil Appeal No.1729 of 2019. 
8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
writing of the will of the legislative organ in a State. A 
‘Statute’ is a declaration of the law, as it exists or as 
shall be from the time at which such statute is, to take 
effect. It is usually called an Act of the Legislature. It 
expresses the collective will of that body. A Statute is 
the highest constitutional formulation of law, the 
means by which supreme legislature, after the fullest 
deliberation expresses its final will.  
 
11. “Statute law” is defined as the will of the nation, 
expressed by the Legislature, expounded by the 
Courts of Justice. If the Parliament is not in session 
then the laws are enforced through the Ordinances 
issued by the President or the Governor expressing 
will of the nation as the case may be. So, the Act 
passed by the Parliament and the Ordinance issued 
by the nation would be called the “Statutory Law”. 
 
12. The Rules framed under the powers conferred by 
an Act are integral part of the Act and these Rules are 
called Statutory Rules and these are held to be part of 
the parent Act. It can do anything if within its scope. 
The Rules or the Bye-Laws made under the Statutes 
or Act cannot over ride the provisions of other Statute. 
Neither the Rules control the construction to be placed 
on the provisions of the Act nor they can enlarge the 
meaning of the section. The Rules are framed under 
the Act in aid to construction of ambiguous Statutes. 
The Rules under the Act shall be made by the 
Authority, empowered under the Act to frame the 
Rules or Bye-Laws. No other authority who is not 
empowered under the Act make the Rules. A Rule 
Making Body also cannot frame the Rules in conflict 
with or derogating from the substantive provisions of 
law or Statute under which the Rules are framed.  
 
14. The Supreme Court Bar Association is a Body, the 
Organization of lawyers, who are entitled to practise 
in the Supreme Court of Pakistan it has not been 
constituted under any Act of the Parliament. It is a 
non-statutory body, therefore, conditions or rules 
framed by this body would also be non-statutory rules 
and having no legal backing. The writ petition under 
Article 199 of the Constitution against a body, 
organization not constituted under the law would not 
be competent.”    
 
9. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to 
persuade us to take a contrary view than the one taken by the 
Islamabad High Court in the impugned judgment, by the 
Lahore High Court in the afore-noted judgment and by this 
Court in a number of judgments including Abdul Sattar 
Chughtai Malik. v. Pakistan Bar Council through Secretary 
and another (PLD 2007 Lahore 170), Muhammad Tariq Badr 
Civil Appeal No.1729 of 2019. 
9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and another. v. National Bank of Pakistan and others (2013 
SCMR 314), Shafique Ahmed Khan and others. v. NESCOM 
through Chairman, Islamabad and others (PLD 2016 SC 
377) and Muhammad Zaman and others. v. Government of 
Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division (Regulation 
Wing), Islamabad and others (2017 SCMR 571). Further, the 
learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to 
demonstrate or point to any legal, procedural or jurisdictional 
error, defect or flaw in the reasoning and exposition of law 
undertaken by the Islamabad High Court in the impugned 
judgment. After carefully going through the provisions of the 
Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 as well as the 
Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan Rules, 1989, we 
have arrived at the same conclusions as the learned High 
Court and find no reason to interfere in the impugned 
judgment.  
 
10. 
 
For the afore-noted reasons, we find no merit in 
this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to 
costs.        
 
Chief Justice  
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
ISLAMABAD.  
28.01.2020. 
Zubair/* 
‘Not Approved For Reporting’ 
