JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. --- Mr. Khalid Umar, Advocate has appeared with the record. He shall prepare a copy of the record and file the same in Court before the next date of hearing.
2. The necessity for fixing this matter in Court, is evident from the circumstances set out in our order dated 31.8.2012 and the events which have followed the said order. We had noted in our order that "a competent, diligent and ethical Bar is an indispensable component of our judicial system. This system cannot function properly if Members of the Bar do not adhere to the code of conduct prescribed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, /973". The provisions of Article 37(d) of the Constitution are also of the utmost relevance. This Article stipulates that "the State shall ...
Ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice". From the decorous and dignified manner in which the learned Trial Court dealt with the matter, it is apparent that there were hindrances placed before the learned Trial Court which resulted in denial of the above-noted Constitutional imperative.
3. The Bar exists for the purpose of ensuring access to and delivery of justice. The Bar is also meant to stand up for upholding the rule of law. But the Bar can discharge these functions only if its members abide by their code of conduct and are subjected, like everyone else, to the rule of law.
4. The disciplinary mechanism of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1976 and the proceedings taken by the Punjab Bar Council in this case appear, prima facie, to have fallen short of the standards set out for Advocates in the code of conduct prescribed under the aforesaid Act.
5. It is inter alia, for the above reasons that we would like to examine the law and, in the light thereof the decision of the Punjab Bar Council Tribunals dated 24.10.2013.
6. Notice issued to Malik Haider Zaman, Advocate has been returned unserved. Let fresh notice issue to Malik Haider Zaman, Advocate for 17th March, 2014.