Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 2456. In this matter between Const. P. 1605/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur - Zulfiqar Ali Channa (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 1605/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur CITATION: 2025 SHC SUK 2456 PARTIES: Zulfiqar Ali Channa (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 18-SEP-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Riazat Ali Sahar(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No.D-1605 of 2025 (Zulfiqar Ali Channa v. P.O. Sindh and others)

FRESH CASE 1.For order son CMA 6288/25(U/A) 2.For order son CMA 6289/25(E/A) 3.For hearing of main case. Before: Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi Mr. Justice Riazat Ali Sahar

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Channa, Advocate (petitioner) present in person.

Date of Hearing: 18-09-2025 Date of Decision: 18-09-2025

O R D E R

RIAZAT ALI SAHAR J.,- By means of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): (a) To declare that the act of the respondents for fixation of Rs.500,000/ - fee of the nomination for contesting candidates in Sindh Bar Council’s Election 2026 -2030 as malafide, ab -initio, null and void, and as sort of misuse of official powers only to deprive the advocates from participating in Sindh Bar Council’s Elections 2026-2030.

(b) To direct the respondent/Sindh Bar cou ncil to fix a reasonable and uniform fee for election 2026 -2030 likewise to the other provinces (Punjab and KPK)”. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a practicing Advocate of this Court, duly enrolled under a valid license, and is regularly paying the prescribed dues of the Sindh Bar Council in accordance with the applicable policy and rules. The petitioner intended to contest the forthcoming elections of the Sindh Bar Council for the term 2026 – 2030. It is averred that for the previous elections of the Sindh Bar Council (2021 –2025), the nomination fee was fixed at Rs.50,000/ -,

2 which was reasonable and affordable. However, the respondent No.2/Additional Advocate General) has, all of a sudden, enhanced the nomination fee for the upcoming elections (2026–2030) to Rs.500,000/-, representing an exorbitant and unprecedented increase of about 900%. The petitioner contends that such fixation of nomination fee is arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, and unlawful, particularly when compared to other provinces of Pakistan, where the nomination fee for participation in respective Bar Council elections is between Rs.75,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. In support of his contention, the petitioner has annexed a copy of a letter issued by the Vice Chairman, Sindh Bar Council, add ressed to respondent No.2, wherein a request was made for reduction of the nomination fee for t he Sindh Bar Council Elections. 3. At the very outset, the petitioner was confronted with the question of maintainability of the instant writ petition, in view of the fact that both this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan have consistently held that a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable against the Bar Council s or Bar Associations. The petitioner, however, could not satisfactorily respond to the query of this Court and merely submitted that the fee fixed by the respondents is exorbitant and discriminatory when compared with the nomination fee prescribed in other provinces of Pakistan. 4. Heard the petitioner in pe rson and perused the material available on record. The grievance of the petitioner, as noted hereinabove, relates to the fixation of nomination fee for contesting the forthcoming Sindh Bar Council Election for the term 2026 –2030. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Mirza Muhammad Nazakat Baig v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministrary Law and Justice, Islamabad (2020 SCMR 631) and Sayed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani v. Pakistan Bar Council through Secretary Supreme Court Bar Building, Islam abad (2021 SCMR 425) , has consistently held that a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a Bar Council or a Bar

3 Association. In the case of the Sayed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under: “14. In addition, it must be noted that it is settled law that fundamental rights are by and large (very exceptional circumstances apart) are enforceable against the State and not against private individuals. The Petitioner however seeks relief against the Exec utive Committee of Pakistan Bar Council, which is an autonomous private body and not a State institution. Therefore, an argument regarding the enforceability of fundamental rights against such a body is flawed at the outset. Accordingly, we hold that a constitutional petition against Pakistan Bar Council or its Executive Committee is not maintainable under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution”. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the instant petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed in limine along with listed application(s) . Let copy of this order be communicated to the respondents for information.

J U D G E J U D G E

Ahmad

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant