Protection of law

Amendment was made in manifesto of academies for promotion of mother languages i.e. Pashto, Hazargi, Balochi and Brahui academies (academies-in-question), decreasing the number of members of elected bodies of academies-in-question

Case of the petitioner was that all the citizens who prescribed the manifesto of the academies-in-question and had some literary background were eligible to join academies as members as they were entitled to be dealt with in accordance with law

Validity

Constitution of Pakistan guarantees the right to association and freedom of expression and any amendment regarding restriction of new membership infringes upon such rights within the purview of Art. 28 of the Constitution and could potentially be challenged as ultra vires the Constitution

Admittedly under Art. 4 of the Constitution, it is the right of every citizen to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law

Similarly, under Art. 25 of the Constitution, all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law

Impugned amendment made in the manifesto of Pashto Academy regarding limited membership seemed to be made without any justification and it is by now settled that an action, which is mala fide or colorful, is not regarded as action in accordance with law

Similarly, an action taken upon extraneous or irrelevant consideration is also not an action in accordance with law, as such, the same amendment whereby the door of the academy had been closed for new entries was liable to be struck down

High Court set-aside the impugned amendment made in S. 2(2) of Manifesto of Pashto Academy as well as sister academies, whereby the number of members had been limited to 40 to 100, as the same was made in violation of provisions of Societies Act, 1860 and fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution

All citizens belonging to the same communities having literary background, prescribing the manifesto and ready to pay the monthly fee and observing the discipline were eligible to be members of the said academies

If any application was filed, the same would be entertained by the President or General Secretory and membership card will be issued immediately without permission from any other body

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Provision of Art. 4 of the Constitution has raised bar of protection afforded to all citizens and persons to a constitutional pedestal.

Merely relying on fundamental rights does not suffice for they are not absolute and do not draw a distinction on the basis of past transactions

Such rights cannot be abridged if the Legislature does not clearly express the intention of undoing past and closed transactions so as to take away those rights as well

Unless this is done, rights guaranteed by Arts. 4, 23 & 24 of the Constitution protect the transactions and keep them inviolate.

Dispute was with regard to show-cause notice issued on the basis of audit report for recovery of duty and taxes on remission for export Duty and Tax Remission for Exports (DTRE) Scheme

Customs Appellate Tribunal held such notice to be barred by limitation

Plea raised by authorities was that bar of limitation was not applicable

Validity

Adjudication of liability and limitation for recovery of duty was provided by relevant statutory regime and the same was not governed by R.307-E of Customs Rules, 2001 and the same could not be enlarged in disregard of provisions of S.32 of Customs Act, 1969

Clarification issued by Federal Board of Revenue vide letter dated 16-07-2014 on the issue of SED did not regulate period of limitation for demand of such duty

Provision of S.32(3A) of Customs Act, 1969 contemplated proceedings on the basis of discovery as a result of audit and limitation prescribed therein stipulated relevant date for the purpose of recovery to be the date of payment of duty or charge instead of any date after audit

Limitation of three years was applicable in law

To enjoy protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law was inalienable right of taxpayer which right was guaranteed by Art.4 of the Constitution

No inherent power vested in the Executive to take any action against taxpayer save in accordance with law

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Constitution and body of statutory laws under it, aim to protect citizens and prohibit the State from treating citizens in manner that is not backed by law

Such requirement has to be understood in a context wherein a citizen is at liberty to do what he/she is not prohibited by law from doing

Functionaries of State can only interfere with his/her life, liberty, body, reputation or property where they are authorized by law to interfere in such manner as prescribed by law.

Prisoners being a special class subject, to special regime and special status are not entirely denude of all Fundamental Rights which are inherent in the Constitution

Such rights of citizens circumscribed by penalty/sentence are a permanent concern of courts unless clearly, without any ambiguity, barred by law

Jurisdiction, unless is expressly barred, can be exercised by superior courts to safeguard Fundamental Rights of citizens

Courts are in general, are ultimate extension of rights and liberties of subject whatever his status and whoever attenuated those rights and liberties may be, as result of some punitive or other process

Essential characteristic right of a subject is that it carries with it a right of recourse to courts unless some statute decrees otherwise.

Rozi/ livelihood is never confined to bread only but it always includes unalienable guaranteed Fundamental Rights which include but are not limited to liberty and dignity.

Every citizen enjoyed protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law was inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he could be

No action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of a person could be taken except in accordance with law.

No person is liable to do which the law does not require him to do.

Every individual has to be given protection of law in terms of Article 4 of the Constitution, whether he is citizen of Pakistan or not.

Under Art.4 of the Constitution, every citizen enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law, was inalienable right of every citizen; wherever he could be and every other person for the time being within Pakistan

Clause (a) of sub-Article (2) of Art.4 expressed that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person, would be taken, except in accordance with law.

Every citizen had right to be treated in accordance with law.

Every citizen had inalienable right to be treated in accordance with law.

Fundamental right that "to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law was inalienable right of every citizen".

Article 4 of the Constitution, incorporated doctrine of equality before law or equal protection of law and no action detrimental to life, liberty, body reputation or property of any person could be taken except in accordance with law

Public functionaries were supposed to function in good faith, honestly and within the precincts of its power so that person concerned should be treated in accordance with law.