FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs KARAMAT ALI R — 2024 SCMR 1952 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN VS KARAMAT ALI R. 14 (1a)---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.IV, Rr. 6, 15 & Sixth Sched., Form No. 5---Federal Government, Provincial Governments and Ministries---Engaging private counsels to plead and conduct cases---Permissibility and legality---Compelling reasons for engaging private counsels in the public interest---Counsel or the applicants argued that in light of judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Rasheed ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage, Government of Pakistan Islamabad, etc. (PLD 2017 SC 121) the Federation as well as Ministries cannot engage a private counsel, and simultaneously the Provincial Government also cannot engage a private counsel as in the matter in hand a private counsel had been engaged and appeals had been filed through them---Validity---Several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court under article 184(3) of the Constitution, challenging the lawfulness of sections 2(1)(d)(i) & (ii) and section 59(4) of the Pakistan army act, 1952---Federation of Pakistan was arrayed as one of the respondents in these petitions through various Ministries such as Defence, Interior, Law and Justice, etc.---Province of Balochistan was also a respondent in some petitions---after these petitions were allowed, intra-court appeals were filed under section 5 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) act, 2023---Rule 15 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 says that no advocate other than an advocate-on-Record is entitled to act for a party in any proceeding in the Supreme Court---For this reason, in the cases at hand, the Government had engaged advocates-on-Record, and the applicants had not questioned their appointments and their right to act for the Government---Rule 6 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 enacts that no advocate other than an advocate-on-Record shall appear or plead in any matter before the Supreme Court unless an advocate-on-Record instructs him---In line with this rule, Form No.5 of Sixth Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 provides a specimen of the Power of attorney to advocate-on-Record, which, among other things, gives power to an advocate-on-Record "to appoint and instruct counsel"---So viewed, it was under this power that the advocate-on-Record appointed and instructed private counsel to argue the matter on behalf of the Government---Substantive questions involved in the present appeals were out of the ordinary, with broad implications that would significantly impact the lives and liberties of citizens---These questions partake of the colour of criminal, constitutional and international human rights---Standing at the rostrum in the courtroom, the attorney General for Pakistan (aGP) stated that although he was conversant with criminal law, he lacked that much expertise which required to address the complex questions of criminal law so raised in present appeals, and therefore, being compelled, private counsels had been engaged to render comprehensive and effective assistance to the Supreme Court in the public interest---attorney General's honesty and sincerity in admitting his limitations was to be appreciated and his statement showed that he was a thorough professional---Thus, the engagement of private counsel was not for any improper motive---Furthermore, the scope of appeal under section 5 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) act, 2023, was also to be settled, and since all the questions raised in present appeals had never been brought before the Supreme Court for consideration, they ought to be discussed extensively to arrive at a sagacious answer---Such a situation constituted a "compelling reason" within the contemplation of Rule 14(1-a) of the Rules of Business, 1973, for engaging private counsel---It also met the test set out in the case reported as Rasheed ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage, Government of Pakistan Islamabad, etc. (PLD 2017 SC 121) for engaging private counsel, which held that the engagement of a private counsel could only be sanctioned for compelling reasons and in the public interest and not to protect or save a particular individual or for any other ulterior reason---In the present case there had been no departure from the procedure for engaging private counsel---Private counsel, given the circumstances, could not be restrained from pleading the cause of the Government---applications were dismissed accordingly.

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs KARAMAT ALI R — 2024 SCMR 1952 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR