Fali Nariman, the celebrated Indian jurist, says: “If an independent judiciary is the backbone of the rule of law, an independent legal profession is the catalyst that helps achieve it”. Recently, the executive committee of the Punjab Bar Council passed a resolution demanding the removal of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, a judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, purportedly over a violation of the Judges’ Code of Conduct. The committee alleged that while writing the Faizabad Sit-in Case verdict, the judge inexcusably berated and derided the armed forces and intelligence agencies of Pakistan, consequently strengthening an Indian narrative. Fortunately, the committee’s initiative was short-lived. Bar associations all over Pakistan vehemently opposed and lambasted the resolution and the Pakistan Bar Council rejected it. The PbBC committee miserably failed to appreciate the fact that the verdict basically reinforces the principles enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan by holding that state institutions must function within their constitutional and statutory mandate. There can be no doubt that the Faizabad sit-in was mishandled by the state institutions. This led to utter chaos in the twin cities. For several days, the writ of state was almost non-existent. The apex court cannot be expected in the circumstances to sit like a toothless spectator, ignore the brazen violation of fundamental rights by self-righteous radicals and remain indifferent towards failure of state institutions. It seems that the only defect in Faizabad sit-in verdict is that it laid bare the wretched reality and exposed the glaring omissions on the part of state institutions. A thorough reading of the verdict shows that the observations incorporated were convincing and had illuminating aspects. The PbBC committee adventure is legally untenable. It also suffers from jurisdictional defects. Firstly, the PbBC is a regulatory body, which deals only with lawyers up-to the level of high court. Lawyers enrolled in the Supreme Court are regulated by the PBC. Secondly, the Faizabad case is sub judice in the review, pending before the apex court. The act of passing a resolution in a matter pending adjudication amounts to unwarranted interference in the judicial process. Thirdly, prima facie there seems to be no violation of Code of Conduct for Judges of the Supreme Court, framed under Article 209 (8) of the Constitution of Pakistan, by Justice Issa. As, the verdict, by any stretch of imagination, has nothing in it to establish that Justice Isa is not a God-fearing, law-abiding, abstemious, truthful, wise, cautious, forbearing, blameless, strong, polite, proper and competent. The PbBC committee has committed a major legal and constitutional fuax pas. However, the bigger issue here is not the legality of the committee’s unprovoked voyage. Rather, it is its kowtowing role to mollify and glorify certain state institutions. It is appalling to note that a body entrusted with the responsibility of regulating the legal profession, maliciously steps into an alien domain demanding removal of an apex court judge and that too under the guise of self-righteous flag-waver emotions and artificially inflated ultra-nationalist passions. It needs to be noted that the PbBC is not a utility store; it is the collective conscience of the legal fraternity. Its statutory obligation under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act is to regulate the legal profession and discipline lawyers by prescribing and enforcing standards of professional conduct. The notion of an independent judiciary inspires our constitutional arrangement and constitutes the basis on which the edifice of our democratic polity stands. If there is one theme that runs through the entire fabric of the constitution, it is that of rule of law and pursuant to the Constitution, it is the judiciary, which is entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the state within the limits set by law As has been rightly pointed out by Justice Krishna Iyer, “the Bar is not a private guild, like that of barbers and butchers but, by bold contrast, a public institution committed to public justice”. Since the time of Roman emperor Claudius, the profession of law is regarded as a noble one. The PbBC is custodian of the high traditions of this noble profession. Historically, bar councils have assailed executive actions during and after martial law, repelled malicious endeavours to restrict court jurisdiction and ensured annulment of several confiscatory enactments. They must do nothing that might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public. The resolution against Justice Isa has unquestionably lowered the high standards and traditions of the PbBC. A legal profession that can be controlled or manipulated by some state institutions or political parties cannot effectively carry out its duty of sustaining the independence of the administration of justice. Lawyers owe loyalty to a higher cause; they must remain crusaders in the field of rule of law to advance the ends of justice. Executive authorities are never persuaded to abide by any constraint. Only lawyers can ensure reasonable and objective exercise of power by state instrumentalities, however, subject to availability of a robust, intrepid and independent judiciary. The notion of an independent judiciary inspires our constitutional arrangement and constitutes the basis on which the edifice of our democratic polity stands. If there is one theme that runs through the entire fabric of the constitution, it is the theme of the rule of law and pursuant to the constitution, it is the judiciary that is entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the state within the limits set by law. The judiciary stands between the citizen and the state as a fortification against executive excesses. Thus, if today freedom of one judge falls to a few ambitious and predisposed officer bearers of the PbBC, tomorrow the freedom of many may fall elsewhere with none to whimper. A few days ago, Babbar Sattar aptly noted in his opinion that bars have become a tool for hire in intra-elite feuds. It is indeed a tragedy that those who are elected to be the voice of the legal profession are themselves violating its founding creed. They oppose model courts and speedy justice and have failed to discipline unruly lawyers but are readily available to become mouthpieces and hired guns for settling intra-elite vendettas and coerce judiciary. It seems like, whenever a judge steps into a no-go area and endeavours to hold accountable institutions not used to judicial accountability, he will have to cope with flimsy references filed by such sycophant sections of legal fraternity. Let’s not overlook the harsh reality that a section of legal fraternity has turned into Trojan horses. Do we deserve an independent bar or Trojan horses designed to break into judicial process? The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore