P L D 2020 Supreme Court 346 (PLP)
(Mr.) Justice QAZI FAEZ ISA and 14 others — Petitioners Versus The PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2020 Supreme Court 346 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, Maqbool Baqar, Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Faisal Arab, Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Sajjad Ali Shah, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | (Mr.) Justice QAZI FAEZ ISA and 14 others — Petitioners Versus The PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (c) Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2020 Supreme Court 346 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (c) Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2020 Supreme Court 346 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, Maqbool Baqar, Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Faisal Arab, Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Sajjad Ali Shah, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2020 Supreme Court 346 (PLP) ((Mr.) Justice QAZI FAEZ ISA and 14 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
- Munir A. Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Salahuddin Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Atif Rafiq, Advocate Supreme Court, assisted by Barrister Kabir Hashmi and Syed Kazim Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court (through video link from Karachi) for Petitioners.
- Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court
- Naseebullah Tareen, Advocate Supreme Court, Munir Kakar, Advocate Supreme Court, Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Advocate, Syed Qalib-e-Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court Amanullah Kanarani, Advocate Supreme Court and Rasheed A. Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (through video link from Karachi) for Petitioners.
- Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate on Record for Petitioner(s).
- Naseebullah Tareen, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner(s).
- Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by:
- Naseebullah Tareen, Advocate Supreme Court, Munir Kakar, Advocate Supreme Court, Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Advocate and Sh. Ahsan ud Din, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner(s).
- Rashid A. Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (through video link from Karachi) and Qasim Mir Jat, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners(s).
- Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by:
- Naseebullah Tareen, Advocate Supreme Court, Munir Kakar, Advocate Supreme Court, Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Advocate and Rashid A. Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (through video link from Karachi) for Petitioner(s).
- Mian Raza Rabbani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Saalim Salim Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court (through video link from Karachi) assisted by: Zeeshan Abdullah, Advocate for Petitioner(s).
- Taufiq Asif, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate on Record for Petitioner(s).
- Rashid A. Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (through video link from Karachi) for Petitioner(s).
- Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, assisted by: Barrister Saad M. Buttar and Barrister Jibran Gillani for Petitioner(s).
- Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, assisted by: Barrister Saad M. Buttar and Barrister Jibran Gillani for Petitioner(s).
- Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by: Naseebullah Tareen, Advocate Supreme Court, Munir Kakar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Advocate for Petitioner(s).
- Rashid A. Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (through video link from Karachi) for Petitioner(s).
- Dr. Farogh Naseem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court along with Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, Addl. A.G. Sajeel Sheryar Swati, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by: Barrister Maleeka Ali Bukhari, Ch. Hassan Murtza Mann, Advocate and Shahid Naseem Gondal, Advocate for Respondents Nos. 2 and 8).
- Sohail Mehmood, D.A.G. for Respondent No.1.
- Aamir Rehman, Addl. A.G. for Respondent No.3.
- Irfan Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court (through video link from Lahore) for Respondent No.4.
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court along with Sajeel Sheryar Sawati, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.9.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 184(3) & 209(5)(b)
Reference against a judge of the Supreme Court ('the petitioner') pending before the Supreme Judicial Council
Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court calling into question the constitutionality and legality of the reference against him
Supreme Court unanimously declared that the reference was of no legal effect whatsoever and stood quashed, and in consequence thereof the proceedings pending in the Supreme Judicial Council ("Council") against the petitioner-judge, including the show-cause notice issued to him, stood abated
Constitutional petitions were disposed of.
Arts. 184(3) & 209(5)(b)
Reference against a judge of the Supreme Court ('the petitioner') pending before the Supreme Judicial Council
Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court calling into question the constitutionality and legality of the reference against him
Supreme Court quashed the reference and declared that the same was of no legal effect whatsoever, and in consequence thereof the proceedings pending in the Supreme Judicial Council ("Council") against the petitioner-judge, including the show-cause notice issued to him, stood abated
Supreme Court (with a majority of 7 to 3) gave directions to the Commissioner, Inland Revenue and Federal Board of Revenue to inquire into and seek explanation from the spouse and children of the petitioner as to the nature and source of the funds whereby the three subject properties in a foreign country were acquired in their names. [Majority view]
Arts. 4, 184(3) & 209(5)(b)
Reference against a judge of the Supreme Court ('the petitioner') pending before the Supreme Judicial Council
Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court calling into question the constitutionality and legality of the reference against him
Supreme Court quashed the reference and declared that the same was of no legal effect whatsoever, and observed that in constitutional democracy, neither the petitioner-judge, nor any other judge, or any individual or any institution, was above the law; that the doors of the Supreme Judicial Council ('the Council') were always open, either on its own motion or for anyone who had a genuine and a bona fide grievance, amenable to the jurisdiction of the Council against a judge of the Constitutional Court; that a judge like any other citizen enjoyed the inalienable constitutional right to be treated in accordance with law; that said fundamental values were to be protected at all cost in order to uphold the majesty and supremacy of the Constitution and to honour the people who had adopted and given to themselves the Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
For detailed reasons to be recorded later and subject to any orders made or directions given therein (if any), these petitions are allowed and disposed of in the following terms:
1. Subject to what is stated below, the Order of the Court is that Reference No. 1 of 2019 is declared to be of no legal effect whatsoever and stands quashed, and in consequence thereof the proceedings pending in the Supreme Judicial Council ("Council") against the Petitioner in C.P. 17/2019 (including the show-cause notice dated 17.07.2019 issued to him) stand abated.
2. Mr. Justice Yahy a Afridi dismisses C.P. 17/2019 and disposes of the other petitions in terms as stated in para 1 herein above.
3. Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar and Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed make the following orders as the further Order of the Court (paras 4 to 11 herein below):
4. Within 7 days of this Order, the concerned Commissioner of Inland Revenue shall himself (and not some other officer exercising delegated powers) issue appropriate notices under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("2001 Ordinance") to the spouse and children of the Petitioner to offer an explanation regarding the nature and source of the funds (separately for each property) whereby the three properties in the United Kingdom (viz., No.40, Oakdale Road, London E1 1 4DL; No.90, Adelaide Road, London E10 5NW; and No. 50, Coniston Court, Kendal Street, London W2 2AN) that are in the names of the spouse and the children were acquired. For purposes of this Order the Commissioner Inland Revenue having jurisdiction over the spouse of the Petitioner (who must be a Commissioner exercising jurisdiction and performing functions at Islamabad) shall be deemed also to be the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the children. (The spouse and children are herein after referred to as "the respondents".) Any notices issued or proceedings taken (or proposed to be issued or taken) under the 2001 Ordinance in relation to any of the respondents in respect, or on account, of the properties aforesaid prior to the date of this Order stand terminated forthwith.
5. The notices shall be served at the official residence of the Petitioner at Islamabad through courier service and such other means as may be considered appropriate and shall be deemed served on the respondents when received at the said address.
6. The respondents shall furnish their replies to the notices along with such material and record as is deemed appropriate. In case any of them is outside the country, it shall be the responsibility of such person to timely file a response, and the proceedings before the Commissioner shall not be adjourned or delayed for the reason of non-availability in Pakistan of such person.
7. Upon receipt of the replies (and of such additional material/record as may be filed in response to such clarification or explanation, if any, as the Commissioner may, in writing, have sought), the Commissioner shall give an opportunity of hearing to the respondents in person or through an authorized representative/counsel and shall thereupon make an order in accordance with the 2001 Ordinance.
8. The proceedings shall be concluded before the Commissioner within 60 days of the date of receipt of the notices as aforesaid, and the order shall be issued by him within 75 days of the said date of receipt, and no adjournment or extension in time whatsoever shall be given as affects or extends the aforesaid periods.
9. Within 7 days of the issuance of the order by the Commissioner, the Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue ("FBR") shall submit a report (to be personally signed by him) to the Council through its Secretary (i.e., the Registrar of the Supreme Court) regarding the proceedings as aforesaid, appending thereto the entire record of the said proceedings. The Secretary shall forthwith place such report before the Chairman of the Council (i.e., the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan) who shall, in such manner as is deemed appropriate, have the report laid before the Council for such perusal, consideration, action, order or proceedings, if any, in relation to the Petitioner as the Council may determine. The receipt of the report, the laying of it before the Council and the action/proceedings, if any, or orders or directions, if any, as may be taken, made or given by the Council thereon shall be deemed, for purposes of Article 209 of the Constitution, to be in exercise of the suo motu jurisdiction as is conferred by that Article on the Council.
10. If, within 100 days from the date of this Order, no report as aforesaid is received by the Secretary from the Chairman, FBR, he shall inform the Chairman of the Council accordingly and shall, if so directed by him, write to the Chairman, FBR requiring an explanation as to why the report has not been received. If in reply the report is filed, then the matter shall proceed in terms of para 9 herein above. If a reply is received without the report or no reply is received, then the Secretary shall bring such fact to the attention of the Chairman of the Council who may direct that the matter be placed before the Council for such perusal, consideration, action, order or proceedings, if any, in relation to the Petitioner (or any other person as deemed appropriate) as the Council may determine. The action/ proceedings, if any, or orders or directions, if any, as may be taken, made or given by the Council shall be deemed, for purposes of Article 209 of the Constitution, to be in exercise of the suo motu jurisdiction as is conferred by that Article on the Council. Without prejudice to the foregoing, if at any stage the report is received from the Chairman, FBR, then the matter shall in any case proceed (or be deemed to proceed, as the case may be) in terms of para 9 herein above.
11. For the removal of any doubts, it is clarified that any of the proceedings under the 2001 Ordinance as herein contemplated on the one hand, and before the Council in terms of para 9 or 10 herein above on the other, are distinct and separate from each other. Accordingly, nothing contained in this Order shall affect or prejudice the right(s) of appeal of any of the respondents under the 2001 Ordinance, if they feel aggrieved by the order made by the Commissioner or (as the case may be) any order made or decision taken at any appellate stage. Any such appeal(s) shall be decided on the merits, in accordance with the 2001 Ordinance. At the same time (and needless to say), the consideration by the Council of any matter placed before it under either para 9 or 10 herein above shall not be affected by the filing or pendency of any appeal as aforesaid. But the Council may, if it deems appropriate, notice such appellate proceedings or orders/ decisions and may (for purposes only of the matter before it) make such orders or give such directions in relation thereto as it deems appropriate.
12. Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar, Mr. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi join in the Order of the Court only to the extent of para 1 herein above, and also make their own order. (Sd) Umar Ata Bandial, J (Sd) Maqbool Baqar, J (Sd) Manzoor Ahmad Malik, J (Sd) Faisal Arab, J (Sd) Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J (Sd) Sajjad Ali Shah, J (Sd) Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J (Sd) Munib Akhtar, J (Sd) Yahya Afridi, J (Sd) Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J Per Maqbool Baqar, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Yahya Afridi, JJ.
13. For the reasons to be recorded later and without limiting our jurisdiction in any manner to appropriately enlarge the scope of or make appropriate declarations and directions in the detailed judgment, subject to para 15 hereunder, we hold the above petitions maintainable and allow the same. One of the outcomes of such declaration is that the Reference filed by the President of Pakistan against the Petitioner (Mr.Justice Qazi Faez Isa) is quashed, and as a result the proceedings along with the Show Cause Notice issued by Supreme Judicial Council stand abated.
14. One of our pivotal Constitutional values is that the independence of judiciary shall be fully secured. The same Constitution also ordains that to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen. Therefore, it is reiterated that in our constitutional democracy, neither the petitioner judge, nor any other judge, or any individual or any institution, is above the law. The doors of the constitutional forum i.e., Supreme Judicial Council are always open, either on its own motion or for anyone who has a genuine and a bona fide grievance, amenable to the jurisdiction of the Council against a Judge of the Constitutional Court. At the same time, it is equally important, that a Judge like any other citizen of Pakistan enjoys the inalienable constitutional right to be treated in accordance with law. These fundamental values are to be protected at all cost in order to uphold the majesty and supremacy of the Constitution and to honour the people of Pakistan who have adopted and given to themselves this Constitution.
15. Yahya Afridi, J. has however found Constitutional Petition No.17/2019 as non-maintainable. (Sd) Maqbool Baqar, J (Sd) Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J (Sd) Yahya Afridi, J MWA/J-2/S Order accordisngly