Lawyers strike against ‘meddling’

Strike was observed in Rawalpindi, Attock, Jhelum, Chakwal, Murree and 23 tehsil bar councils


Our Correspondent May 04, 2024
PHOTO: AGHA MEHROZ/EXPRESS

print-news
RAWALPINDI:

The legal fraternity on Friday observed a complete strike in five districts of the Rawalpindi division to show complete solidarity with the six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the alleged interference in their official work and to register protest against the registration of cases against lawyers, their arrests and conviction of a lawyer on the contempt of court. The strike was called by the Punjab Bar Council.

The strike was observed in Rawalpindi, Attock, Jhelum, Chakwal, Murree and 23 tehsil bar councils. The lawyers didn’t appear in the courts in protest as a result the judicial complex and the district court gave a deserted look at 10am. Due to the complete strike, as many as 9,823 cases couldn’t be heard in the session court and civil and family magistrate courts of the Rawalpindi division.

The President of the High Court Bar, Malik Jawad Khalid, the Secretary High Court Bar Shabeer Mirza, the President of Rawalpindi District Bar, Intizar Mehdi Shah, and the Secretary-General, Shahid Zafar announced that the legal fraternity would give a severe reaction if their demands weren’t accepted.

Addressing the protesting lawyers, they warned of strict action against the lawyers who appear in the courts on the day of a strike. The office-bearers said that the lawyers always backed the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. They demanded to stop retaliatory actions and end fabricated cases against lawyers and warned of dire consequences.

Apart from the strike, the working at courts remained suspended owing to the participation of 12 judges of the Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi Bench in a special lecture on criminology.

Published in The Express Tribune May 4th, 2024.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ