FAHAD AKRAM BHATTI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ss — 2026 PLD 262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

FAHAD AKRAM BHATTI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ss.5a & 5B [as amended through Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils (amendment) act (XXIV of 2025)]---Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, Rr.4, 6, 10-B & 175-K---Constitution of Pakistan, arts.8(2), 25, 97 & 199---Constitutional petitions---Vires of amendments enhancing eligibility criteria for membership of Provincial Bar Councils and introducing changes in election framework, challenge to---Whether amendments were discriminatory, violative of fundamental rights, and retrospective vis-à-vis Bar Council Elections, 2025---Legality---Determination---Brief facts of the matter were that the petitioners, who were advocates enrolled with various Bar associations, filed constitutional petitions challenging the amendments introduced through the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils (amendment) act, 2025 and the corresponding amendments in the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, whereby changes were made to the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of Provincial and Islamabad Bar Councils, including enhancement of the eligibility threshold from five to ten years as an advocate of the High Court, requirement of conducting thirty decided cases, additional voter membership conditions, modifications relating to right to vote, nomination, and disqualification on violation of the Code of Conduct; the amendments were enacted shortly before the Provincial Bar Council Elections, 2025---Held: The amended qualification of ten (10) years as an advocate of High Court was in line with the earlier prescribed qualification of five (05) years---The question that as to what should have been the touchstone and length of experience was purely a matter within the legislative competence of the legislature and its wisdom in bringing about this change could not be questioned---The impugned amendment of S.5a of the act, 1973 was not discriminatory in nature by any means---The rights claimed by the petitioners might have become vested rights being enforceable under the law once such rights were perfected by virtue of acceptance of nomination papers of the candidates or at least when the election schedule was notified---Mere claim of 'campaign' for upcoming election did not transform a mere expectancy into a 'vested right' in any manner---Bar Councils created and functioning under the act, 1973 and the Rules, 1976, be it Pakistan Bar Council or Provincial Bar Councils, were performing delegated authority of the Federation to regulate the profession of law---article 97 of the Constitution clearly purported that the power and authority to legislate viz a particular subject matter, came within the executive authority of the federation qua the same subject---The condition of "continuous practice for five preceding years in such district", sought to be imposed through impugned notification, clearly amounted to contradicting, overriding and enlarging the scope of statutory provision as provided under S.5a(d) of the act, 1973, which imposed a condition that a candidate simply needed to be a voter member of Bar association falling in such district for a period of not less than five (05) years---Similarly, the amended clause (a) of Rule 175-K and newly inserted clause (a1) of Rule 175-K of the Rules, 1976 were also not in conformity with the definition of a voter, as couched in S.2(o) of the act, 1973---Rules made under a parent statute could not go beyond the scope of parent statute---amendments brought about through the Impugned Notification in R.6(1), clause (a) to R.175-K and clause (a1) to R.175-K of the Rules, 1976 were declared ultra vires---The remedy of appeal being provided before the attorney General against the decision of advocate General lacked the element of judicial oversight, therefore, sub-rule (5) substituted R.10-B of Rules, 1976 was declared ultra vires and the matter was referred to the Pakistan Bar Council for reconsidering the same by providing a remedy, which might have some judicial oversight---The challenge laid to the vires of the amendments brought about in the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils act,1973, by virtue of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils (amendment) act, 2025 was dismissed and the impugned amendments thereof were declared intra vires---The alternate prayer seeking declaration that the amended provisions were retrospective in nature, therefore, the same could not be implemented for the upcoming elections of the Provincial Bar Councils was also dismissed being misconceived---Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

FAHAD AKRAM BHATTI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ss — 2026 PLD 262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD