Degrees, Doubt and the Credibility of Law: Inside the Pakistan Bar Council Verification Row

In Pakistan's legal fraternity a single question has been circling for weeks: is the certificate actually genuine? The row that has taken shape since a document surfaced after December 19 is not merely about the degrees of a few lawyers; it is a question about an institution's verification machinery, the transparency of its decisions, and public trust in the framework of justice. The document first came to light through papers reaching the English daily The Express Tribune. Around those papers arose claims that the LLB and BA degrees of some figures at the top of the Pakistan Bar Council remain in question. At the centre of the allegations sits senior lawyer Chaudhry Ahsan Bhoon and several others. The question is not simple, because many of those raising it are themselves part of the institution's decision-making. For context, the Pakistan Bar Council is not merely a professional body; it is the regulator of the legal profession, the issuer of licences, and the guardian of ethical standards. To be enrolled as a lawyer, a law degree from a recognised university is mandatory, and the duty of verifying that degree rests with the body itself. Here lies the complexity: questions about how rigorous, transparent and timely the verification process is have been long-standing. The reliable source of verification is treated as the record of the University of the Punjab, where a student's name, roll number, registration number and marks are preserved. These details form the basis of verification. But when an institution faces verification of its own top leadership's certificates, the process ceases to be merely administrative and becomes political. Analysing the core elements, questions about the degrees at the centre of the allegations have been raised at three levels. First, whether a degree is recognised at all; second, whether the roll number and registration number cited in the degree record match the university's original documents; third, whether the process of obtaining the degree was lawful. The allegation states that in some cases a degree may be 'fake, bogus or otherwise incapable of lawful verification'. This allegation concerns not just an individual's reputation; it is tied to the profession's overall credibility. In the legal profession a certificate is not just paper — it is a declaration of a lawyer's competence even before sitting on the judge's bench. The matter becomes even more significant when it reaches the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. A complaint before the country's highest body for judicial appointments and discipline means the question has moved beyond the personal to the institutional level. Who is filing this complaint and how much evidence backs it is now the central question. For a complaint filed before the Commission carries weight only when it rests on verifiable documents, not merely political rhetoric. Here the gap between claim and proof begins to show — on one side the University of the Punjab records and Bar Council documents, on the other a one-sided allegation. Finding the balance between the two is the real task of this controversy. The political dimension surfaces through the campaign of Capt (retd) Muhammad Safdar. According to the allegations, he is vocal against the government-backed Independent Group, and in that same key he has raised questions about lawyers' certificates. The question arises whether this campaign is genuinely for professional improvement, or whether it is a weapon in the fight over bar elections or the power structure. A section of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)-leaning lawyers are said to stand beside Safdar, while the source of the allegations is itself questioned — is it an independent initiative, or one conducted under party patronage? This ambiguity is a repetition of an old truth: when trust in an institution weakens, a certificate becomes politics' sharpest weapon. Here it is important to see the reverse side. The call for verification is not inherently wrong; it is necessary for the health of a profession. But when verification is arranged against a chosen few, and the method is not transparent, it can take the form of revenge rather than fairness. Under the leadership of Bar Council chairman and Attorney General Mansoor Awan, if the process underway applies equally to all, it is praiseworthy; if it is used only against political opponents, it will weaken the institution further. Crossing that fine line is the biggest challenge of this moment. There is a structural lesson here. If work like degree verification were done through a technology-driven, immutable record system rather than on paper, the 'fake' versus 'genuine' dispute would shrink considerably. A blockchain-based verifiable credential system — where a degree is recorded in a tamper-proof digital ledger the moment it is issued, and anyone can verify it independently — could help prevent exactly this kind of controversy. The question, however, is not of technology but of will. If those who benefit from verification also profit from opacity, no technology alone is a solution. From years of working with institutional documents, decisions and power structures, what I have seen is that an institution's crisis is never merely a document's crisis; it is a crisis of trust. When questions arise about the certificates of the top leadership, an ordinary lawyer also asks — why is my certificate verified and not his? If the institution cannot answer this, internal fracture in the Bar Council will grow. And if verification takes on a partisan colour, public doubt about the neutrality of the legal profession will deepen. In the days ahead, three signals must be watched. First, what process the Judicial Commission adopts on this complaint — evidence-based, or settled under pressure? Second, how broad the verification list becomes — whether equal standards are applied to all, not just the accused. Third, how intense this controversy becomes in the context of bar elections after January 21. For if the credibility of the certificates of the institution that delivers justice is itself questioned, the credibility of justice is questioned. And right there all discussion stops — the answer to this question will be written not in a committee's report, but in the institution's own conduct.