P L D 2021 Supreme Court 667 (PLP)
JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA and others — Petitioners Versus The PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2021 Supreme Court 667 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, Maqbool Baqar, Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Sajjad Ali Shah, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ |
| Parties | JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA and others — Petitioners Versus The PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2021 Supreme Court 667 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2021 Supreme Court 667 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, Maqbool Baqar, Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Sajjad Ali Shah, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2021 Supreme Court 667 (PLP) (JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA and others — Petitioners Versus The PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Khan, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record (in C.R.Ps. Nos. 299, 300, 301 and 308 of 2020).
- Rasheed A. Rizvi, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court (through Video Link from Karachi) (in C.R.Ps. Nos. 297 and 309 of 2020).
- Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record (in C.R.P. No.509 of 2020).
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 188 & 209(5)(b)
Review petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the directions given to the tax authorities by the Supreme Court to conduct an inquiry into the foreign assets of petitioner judge's family members and submit a report to the Supreme Judicial Council despite quashing of Presidential reference against the petitioner-judge
By way of the impugned directions contained in paras 4 to 11 of the short order (reported as PLD 2020 SC 346), along with supporting detailed reasons given in the majority judgment (reported as PLD 2021 SC 1), the Supreme Court directed the Commissioner, Inland Revenue and Federal Board of Revenue to inquire into and seek explanation from the spouse and children of the judge as to the nature and source of the funds whereby the properties in a foreign country were acquired in their names, and also send a report in such regard to the Supreme Judicial Council, which it was held had the powers to, if it considered justified, to commence proceedings against the judge in exercise of its suo motu jurisdiction
[Per Maqbool Baqar, J (Majority view)]: Impugned directions contained in paras 4 to 11 of the short order (PLD 2020 SC 346), and other connected matters along with supporting detailed reasons given in the majority judgment (PLD 2021 SC 1), of the same date were recalled and set-aside
All the subsequent proceedings, actions, orders, information and reports in pursuance of the directions contained in the short order (PLD 2020 SC 346), and the detailed reasons thereof (PLD 2021 SC 1), were declared to be illegal and without any legal effect
Resultantly, the Supreme Court directed that any such proceedings, actions, orders or reports could not be considered or acted upon and pursued any further by any forum or authority including the Supreme Judicial Council]
[Per Yahya Afridi, J, agreeing with the Majority view: Directions contained in paragraphs Nos. 4 to 11 of the short order (PLD 2020 SC 346), and the detailed judgment (PLD 2021 SC 1), and other connected petitions were recalled
Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings, actions, orders and reports made in pursuance to the said directions were declared to be of no legal effect and/or consequences]
Review petitions were allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
For reasons to be recorded later, these review petitions are dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE I do not agree with the dismissal and append my note accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE I agree with my brother Justice Maqbool Baqar. Sd/- JUDGE I agree with my brother HJ Maqbool Baqar. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE I agree with my brother Maqbool Baqar, J. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE I don't. My reasons are appended. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE I agree with my brother Justice Maqbool Baqar. Sd/- JUDGE ORDER OF THE BENCH By majority of six to four (Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed dissenting), these review petitions, except as mentioned below, are allowed.
2. Civil Review Petition No.296 of 2020 titled (Justice Qazi Faez Isa v. The President of Pakistan and others) is allowed by five and dismissed by five Hon'ble members of the Bench. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SHORT ORDER For the reasons to be recorded later, captioned Review Petitions are allowed and the directions contained in paras 4 to 11 of the impugned short order dated 19.06.2020 passed in Const. Petition No.17/2019 and other connected matters, along with supporting detailed reasons given in the majority judgment of the same date, are recalled and set-aside. All the subsequent proceedings, actions, orders, information and reports in pursuance of the directions contained in the short order dated 19.6.2020 and the detailed reasons thereof, are declared to be illegal and without any legal effect. Resultantly, any such proceedings, actions, orders or reports cannot be considered or acted upon and pursued any further by any forum or authority including the Supreme Judicial Council. Sd/- (Maqbool Baqar, J.) Sd/- (Manzoor Ahmed Malik, J.) Sd/- (Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J.) Sd/- (Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J.) Sd/- (Amin-ud-Din Khan, J.) YAHYA AFRIDI, J.
For the reasons to be recorded later, all review petitions except C.R.P. No. 296 of 2020, are allowed and the directions contained in paragraphs Nos. 4 to 11 of the order dated 19.06.2020 and detail judgment dated 23.10.2020 passed in Constitution Petition No. 17 of 2019 and other connected petitions are recalled. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings, actions, orders and reports made in pursuance to the said directions are declared to be of no legal effect and/or consequences. Sd/- Judge MWA/J-5/SC Order accordingly.