Eight lawyers reject proposed PBC secrecy rules

Eight members of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) have opposed proposed changes to the council’s rules that would

Eight members of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) have opposed proposed changes to the council’s rules that would make its proceedings and deliberations confidential.

The members said the PBC is an elected statutory body. They said it represents the country’s legal fraternity and must therefore work transparently.

The objection was raised in a letter sent to the PBC secretary. Abid Shahid Zuberi, Muhammad Maqsood Buttar, Shafqat Mehmood-Chauhan, Munir Ahmed Kakar, Abdul Sattar Khan, Salman Akram Raja, Salahuddin Ahmed and Qazi Muhammad Arshad signed the letter.

A copy of the letter was also sent to Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan, who is the ex-officio chairman of the PBC.

The proposed changes seek to introduce Rule 97-A into the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976.

The proposed rule would classify the proceedings and business of the PBC as confidential. It would also cover the council’s committees, tribunals, sub-committees and other bodies working under its authority.

The proposed restrictions would apply to written and electronic records. Emails, digital files, photographs, audio recordings and video recordings would also fall under the proposed confidentiality rules.

The members questioned the need for such wide-ranging restrictions. They said the council should not treat secrecy as the normal practice.

They also objected to the procedure being used to introduce the amendments.

The members said the proposed changes were being circulated under Rule 91 instead of being discussed at a formal meeting of the full council.

They pointed out that Rule 91 allows a circular resolution in an emergency. However, they said no emergency had been explained that would justify making major changes to statutory rules through circulation.

The members said important amendments should be discussed in a proper meeting. They said council members should have the opportunity to present their views, debate the proposals and raise objections.

They also questioned the authority of the rules committee to determine whether an emergency existed for the full PBC. According to the members, the committee cannot replace a meeting of the full council through a circular resolution.

The members said transparency should remain the general rule for the PBC. They acknowledged that some matters could require confidentiality, particularly sensitive disciplinary cases involving personal privacy.

However, they said such exceptions should remain limited. They opposed making secrecy the general principle for all council proceedings.

The members also raised constitutional concerns. They argued that the proposed restrictions could affect the freedom of speech protected under Article 19 of the Constitution.

They also said the amendments could conflict with the right to information guaranteed under Article 19-A.