Pakistan Print edition: 2026-05-20

Number of members for calling meeting: PBC objects to proposed amendment to Rule 87 (C)

Published May 20, 2026 Updated May 20, 2026 02:34am

2 min

By Terence J Sigamony

Add BRecorder as a trusted
source on Google

ISLAMABAD: Eight members of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) objected to the proposed amendment in Rule 87 (C) of Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1976, to increase the Council’s members from 5 to 10 for calling its meeting.

Abid S Zuberi, Maqsood Buttar, Shafqat M Chauhan, Munir A Kakar, Abdul Sattar Khan, Salahuddin Ahmed, Salman A Raja, and Qazi M Arshad wrote a letter to the PBC Rules Committee, calling upon it to immediately withdraw the proposed amendment to Rule 87(C) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1976. They warned against challenging the amendment in a competent court of law.

Themembers condemned the proposed amendment sought to be introduced by the Council’s Rules Committee whereby the number of members, upon whose requisition, a meeting of the Bar Council can be called, has been increased from five to ten.

They said no reason whatsoever has been shared with the existing members of the Pakistan Bar Council for the said proposed amendment, making the whole process entirely arbitrary and undemocratic.

They also wrote that the proposed amendment has been introduced with mala fide intentions to exclude the eight undersigned members from advocating for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, as the proposed amendment greatly limits the powers of the eight undersigned members to call for a meeting.

They called the proposed amendment a clear effort to curb the independent voices of the members of the Pakistan Bar Council who have been vocally opposing the 26th and 27thamendments to the 1973 Constitution.

They said that the proposed amendment is entirely undemocratic and tainted with sheer malice. Even in the National Assembly and the Senate of Pakistan, the opposition members have the right to requisition a meeting, as fair and equal representation of opposition is the foundation of every democratic forum, they added. They said it is evident that the proposed amendment is in sheer violation of fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 4, 8, 9, 14, 17, 19, and 25 of the Constitution.

Read Comments