Business Recorder
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Tuesday declared that, under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution of 1973, high courts have the authority to issue writs and grant affirmative directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights against “any person,” including regulatory bodies such as bar councils. The 20-page judgment, authored by Justice Aamir Farooq, also held that preventing lawyers from representing their clients or from approaching or appearing before courts is entirely impermissible. A two-judge bench, comprising Justice Aamir Farooq and Justice Rozi Khan Barrech, heard appeals against the Peshawar High Court (PHC) but found no infirmity in its reasoning, stating that the high court had correctly determined that the writ petitions were maintainable. The licence of Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, an advocate of the Supreme Court, was suspended by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council for violating resolutions passed by the Peshawar High Court Bar Association on September 29 and October 4, 2025. The suspension was primarily due to his representation of a station house officer (SHO) against whom an FIR had been registered in a young lawyer’s murder case. Similarly, the licence of Ali Azim Afridi, an Advocate of the High Court, was suspended by the Executive Committee of the KP Bar Council for appearing before the court on a day when the lawyers’ body had announced a strike. The judgment emphasised that the term “any person” in Article 199(1)(c) cannot reasonably be restricted only to those performing functions related to the affairs of the federation or a provincial government. It noted that Article 199(5) begins with the phrase “unless the context otherwise requires,” which indicates that provisions such as Article 199(1)(c) are not strictly confined by the definitions in Article 199(5). Rather, this phrase provides flexibility, allowing the word “person” to be interpreted according to the situation, subject to the scope of the jurisdictional clauses of Article 199. The court further observed that high courts must intervene to uphold the Constitution, and their authority to do so flows directly from Article 199(1)(c), which empowers them to remedy situations and issue “appropriate orders.” In this way, Article 5 reinforces the high court’s role by ensuring that constitutional obedience is not merely a state obligation but a universal one binding on all citizens, thereby justifying judicial intervention even in cases of private wrongdoing. The judgment clarified that high courts, under Article 199(1)(c), can issue appropriate directives and positive orders to ensure compliance with fundamental rights. “We have clearly seen that under Article 199(1)(c), the high court is not confined to issuing writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights only in connection with state functionaries or governmental bodies. Such writs can also be issued against private persons,” the court stated. “We see no reason to limit this principle and say that regulatory bodies like bar councils are immune from writ jurisdiction and that the high court cannot enforce fundamental rights when such bodies are involved.” The verdict also addressed the common practice of strikes called by bar associations or bar councils in the subcontinent, declaring it illegal and in violation of the right of access to justice for litigants and their counsel. The court maintained that “the lawyers have no right to go on strike or to give a call for boycott and abstain from appearing in courts pursuant to such a call.” Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Go to News Site