Lawyers divided over Multan bench closure

MHCBA requests SC to declare the shutting down by the LHC to be illegal and unconstitutional

ISLAMABAD: Various bar associations of superior courts have taken divergent positions on the row between Lahore High Court (LHC) and LHC Multan Bar Association over the closure of the Multan bench.

The Multan High Court Bar Association has approached the Supreme Court, requesting it to declare the shutting down by the LHC to be illegal and unconstitutional.

The constitutional petition was filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by Syed Riazul Hassan Gilani advocate, naming the LHC chief justice, registrar, the secretary interior and others as respondents.

Terming the situation in LHC’s Multan bench unfortunate and uncalled for, the petition stated that the dispute between a senior LHC judge and lawyers started on July 24.

Subsequently, the chief justice LHC ordered to close down the entire bench.



“This act of the LHC CJ and registrar (amounts to) misusing their powers and not only have they (ordered to) close/ shut down the entire LHC Multan bench but also transferred (all) cases to the principal seat of LHC.”

It contended that this act would not only hurt the lawyers’ interests, but it would also deprive 50 million people of southern Punjab.

Members of the bar were staging a series of protests and this was a matter of grave public importance and fundamental rights.

According to the petitioner, the LHC’s Multan bench was created under Article 198 (3) of the Constitution and the closure of the bench was unwarranted under the Constitution.

“The right to peaceful protest is warranted by the constitution and lawyers were exercising their (constitutional) right but the respondent No 1 (CJ) became prejudiced to the act of lawyers, resulting in the closure of the bench, which is against the Article 198 (3) of the Constitution,” stated the petition.

“Respondent No 1 is a public servant and he is bound to act in accordance with law while in case disobedience and violation of law, he is also liable to be proceeded against.”

The Multan High Court Bar Association contended that proceedings should be initiated against the “respondent No 1” under Article 209 for alleged misconduct.

The bar requested the SC to suspend the notification regarding the closure of the Multan bench and direct the LHC registrar to immediately open and make the bench functional.



However, vice-chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon took a strong exception to hooliganism which took place in the court of the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court and strongly condemned the unbecoming conduct of “a few advocates which has brought bad name to the community”.

Such misbehaviour was against all legal and ethical norms, which amounts to deliberate effort to disgrace the bench and bar.

He laid stress on the need for mutual respect of the judiciary as well as bar members. Bhoon also urged the Punjab Bar Council to take stern action against those responsible for the incident.