The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled in a significant constitutional judgment that under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution, High Courts have the authority to issue appropriate directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights against ‘any person’, ‘institution’, or ‘regulatory body’.
According to the detailed judgment, a two-member bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Rozi Khan Bareech issued the verdict, which had been reserved on March 31, 2026, in appeals filed by the Peshawar High Court Bar Association.
The court observed that a review of the constitutional history of the High Courts’ writ jurisdiction, from the Government of India Act, 1935, to the Constitutions of Pakistan of 1956, 1962, and the present Constitution, showed that the power had consistently remained broad and was never confined solely to government authorities.
The judgment stated that the purpose of Article 199(1)(c) is to ensure the protection of fundamental rights. Therefore, where the rights of a citizen are affected by the actions of a private individual, a private institution, or an autonomous regulatory body, the High Court is competent to intervene.
The court emphasized that fundamental rights cannot be treated as merely theoretical rights and that constitutional courts are duty-bound to ensure their effective enforcement.
Referring to various judicial precedents, including the Pakistan Olympic Association case, the court held that the phrase “any person” used in Article 199(1)(c) carries a wide meaning and includes bodies corporate, autonomous institutions, and other organizations. It observed that a violation of fundamental rights need not necessarily originate from a government entity.
Citing Article 5 of the Constitution, the court noted that loyalty to and obedience of the Constitution is obligatory upon every citizen. According to the facts of the case, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council had passed a resolution barring lawyers from representing a police officer accused in the murder case of a young lawyer. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Supreme Court lawyer Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, while Advocate Ali Azeem Afridi’s licence was suspended for appearing before a court during a lawyers’ strike.
The affected lawyers challenged the actions before the Peshawar High Court, which set aside the Bar Council’s measures and held that lawyers have the right to practise their profession independently and to represent their clients. The Bar Council then filed appeals before the Federal Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court ruled that no lawyer can be penalized merely for representing an unpopular or controversial accused person. It observed that a fundamental principle of the justice system is that every accused person has the right to be defended by counsel of his or her choice, and lawyers should not face disciplinary action for performing their professional duties.
Upholding the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed all appeals filed by the Peshawar High Court Bar Association.