Lawyer And Advocate In Lahore Pakistan:
The Advocates in Lahore Pakistan said that the Central Government may by Notification in the Official Gazette appoint different dates for bringing into force different provisions of the Act but our sins quickly caught up. All the provisions of the Advocates in Lahore Pakistan have been duly brought into force - all save section 30 (Right of Advocates to Practice): even after more than forty years this statutory provision has remained a dead letter: the valuable right intended to be conferred, remains on the statute-book but without legal force. Attempts to persuade successive Governments at the Centre to notify Section 30 have not been successful. In August 1988, a Division Bench of two Justices of the Supreme Court was persuaded to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus to the Central Government to consider within a period of six months whether Section 30 of the Advocates in Lahore Pakistan, should not be brought into force but the Writ proved to be infructuous since it was brought to the Court's notice that in an earlier judgment rendered by a Bench of Justices, the Court had ruled that no mandamus would lie against Government compelling it to bring into force enacted law). In exasperation, the Bar Council of Pakistan took the unprecedented step of calling for a one-day strike by lawyers throughout the country for bringing into force Section 30 of the Advocates in Lahore Pakistan and lawyer in Lahore Pakistan Act as enacted.
The One- Day Strike Was A Complete Success:
The one- day strike was a complete success, but after seven long years Section 30 still remains to be brought into force! I get the feeling that our friends in Government, (and also in Parliament), have forsaken us. And as for Judges, they sometimes tend to look the other way when lawyer’s rights are mentioned. That it was fundamental to the rule of law that the services of a lawyer in Lahore Pakistan should be available for Consultation for any accused person under circumstances of "near custodial interrogation". When this "fundamental rule of law" was sought to be invoked in the year of grace 1992 viz. a right to the services of a lawyer in Lahore Pakistan during investigation before Customs Officers, Excise Officers and Officers of the Foreign Exchange Directorate, Nandani Sathpathy's case was distinguished on the ground that the protection against testimonial compulsion was restricted, by prior judicial decisions of the Court, only to persons interrogated by Police Officers, and not by other statutory authorities having Police powers.
It was then argued (in that case) that where a person is called away from his house and questioned in the atmosphere of a Customs Officer's room without the assistance of his lawyer (or friend) this action would violate the Life-and-Liberty Clause of the Constitution (Article 21). The argument was rejected by a Bench of Court, with some uncomplimentary observations on the role of lawyer in Lahore Pakistan. The Court said (AIR 1992 SC 1975):"The purpose of the enquiry under the Customs Act and other similar statutes will be completely frustrated if the whims of the persons in possession of useful information for the departments are allowed to prevail. In order to achieve the goal if the appropriate authorities be of the view that such person should be kept separate from the atmosphere and the Company of persons who boost them in adopting a non-cooperative attitude towards the mechanism of law, there cannot be any legitimate objection in depriving them of such company of Advocates in Lahore Pakistan.