LHC sets April 18 for hearing on reserved seats
Petitioner Munir Ahmed had filed the petition through advocate Azhar Siddique, requesting the court to direct the concerned quarters to implement the judgment of the superior court.
The counsel argued that despite the clear judgment of the apex court, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has not yet issued any notification regarding reserved seats, which was tantamount to committing contempt of court.
He argued that the electoral watchdog was not implementing the decision as directed under Article 189 of the Constitution, for which Article 204 was already in place and at the same time, the LHC has the jurisdiction in view of Article 187(2) to implement the decision or to enforce it.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Trump cleared by court to implement education cuts
A person walks in front of the Department of Education building, in Washington, U.S., February 4, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/ A divided United States supreme court gave US President Donald Trump the green light on Monday to resume dismantling the Education Department. The conservative-dominated court, in an unsigned order, lifted a stay that had been placed by a federal district judge on mass layoffs at the department. The three liberal justices on the nine-member panel dissented. Trump pledged during his White House campaign to eliminate the Education Department, which was created by an act of Congress in 1979, and he moved in March to slash its workforce by nearly half. Trump instructed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to 'put herself out of a job'. Today marks a victory for education! We're one step closer to returning education to the states. — Secretary Linda McMahon (@EDSecMcMahon) July 14, 2025 Around 20 states joined teachers' unions in challenging the move in court, arguing that the Republican president was violating the principle of separation of powers by encroaching on Congress's prerogatives. In May, District Judge Myong Joun ordered the reinstatement of hundreds of fired Education Department employees. The supreme court lifted the judge's order without explanation, just days after another ruling that cleared the way for Trump to carry out mass firings of federal workers in other government departments. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said in the Education ruling that 'only Congress has the power to abolish the Department'. 'The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naïve, but either way the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave,' Sotomayor said. Traditionally, the federal government has had a limited role in education in the US, with only about 13 per cent of funding for primary and secondary schools coming from federal coffers, the rest being funded by states and local communities. But federal funding is invaluable for low-income schools and students with special needs. And the federal government has been essential in enforcing key civil rights protections for students. After returning to the White House in January, Trump directed federal agencies to prepare sweeping workforce reduction plans as part of wider efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — previously headed by Elon Musk — to downsize the government. Trump has moved to fire tens of thousands of government employees and slash programmes — targeting diversity initiatives and abolishing the Education Department, the US humanitarian aid agency USAID and others.
Business Recorder
15 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SC rules coercive tax recovery not allowed without due notice
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court held that Section 140 of the Tax Ordinance, 2001 does not permit immediate coercive recovery in the absence of a date set in the notice. 'Section 140 of the Ordinance expressly provides that the party holding money on behalf of the taxpayer must be afforded a notice with a due date to discharge its liability,' said a judgment, authored by Justice Ayesha. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Munib Akhtar and comprising Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Shahid, on Monday, delivered a judgment. Justice Shahid found reasons of Justice Ayesha meticulously articulated with clarity and precision, but to further enhance the understanding of these reasons, wrote his additional note. Amendments to orders for accuracy: Commissioner IR has powers under Sec 221(1) of IT law: SC The judgment said the section requires the Commissioner to set a date in the notice for recovery purposes, hence, the requirement of the Rule 210 C (3) of the Income Tax Recovery Rules, 2002 for immediate recovery is against the scheme of Section 140 of the Ordinance, adding 'Rule 210C is contrary to the requirements of Section 140 of the Ordinance.' The judgment further stated; 'It is settled law that rules are subordinate or delegated legislation, framed under a statute and, therefore, subservient to the statute itself and must yield where there is any inconsistency.' The Court observed that the language of Section 140 of the Ordinance does not envisage immediate or mechanical recovery rather the provision contemplates that the Commissioner will issue notice and will give a reasonable timeframe for the purpose of recovery. 'The requirement of notice before recovery is not merely statutory but reflects the broader guarantees of due process and fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution, as well as the right to dignity under Article 14.' The judgment said that the courts have consistently upheld that even in fiscal matters, recovery must be carried out in a manner that respects the individual's dignity and legal safeguards. 'Consequently, even where the law allows coercive recovery, it must be carried out in a way that preserves the dignity of the taxpayer.' The Respondent in CPLA No.3578 of 2024 is Pakistan LNG Limited whose income tax return for the year 2020 was amended in terms of order dated 15.03.2021 under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, raising a demand of Rs2,928,517,260 for recovery of tax due. On the same date, notice under Section 137(2) of the Ordinance was issued informing the taxpayer of the amount due. The Respondent challenged the amended assessment order before the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) (CIR Appeals) which appeal was decided on 09.03.2022 and subsequently uploaded on the web portal of the FBR (i.e., IRIS) at 3:28 pm. On the same date, at 4:00 pm, notice under Section 140 of the Ordinance was issued for immediate recovery in terms thereof. The Respondent in CPLA No.4598 of 2024 is Serene Air Private Limited who is a withholding agent and who statedly did not fulfill its obligations for the tax year 2020. Resultantly, proceedings in terms of Section 161 read with Section 205 of the Ordinance were decided on 31.03.2022. On the same date, notices under Section 137(2) of the Ordinance were issued raising a demand of Rs1,883,917,790 for recovery of withholding tax. The respondent filed an appeal before the CIR Appeals which was decided on 11.05.2023 at 1:56 pm. On the same date, notices under Section 140 of the Ordinance were issued to the banks for immediate recovery at 10:30 pm. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
15 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Disqualification of a member: Speaker's role is limited and clearly defined: PA Speaker
LAHORE: Speaker of the Punjab Assembly, Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan, while speaking with journalists, stated that in recent days, an impression is being created that the Speaker is eager to send references. However, the fact is that under the Rules of Business and constitutional provisions, the Speaker's role is both limited and clearly defined. Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan emphasized that there is no ambiguity in Article 63(2) of the Constitution. It clearly states that if a question arises regarding the disqualification of a member, it is the Speaker who decides whether such a question has indeed arisen. If the Speaker does not make a decision within thirty days, the matter is automatically referred to the Election Commission. He informed that he has received three applications from Mujtaba Shuja-ur-Rehman, Ahmad Iqbal, and Iftikhar Chhachhar. He clarified that these are not references, but constitutional applications that must be decided strictly in accordance with the Constitution. Referring to a key incident from the past, Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan recalled that in 2017, twenty-two MNAs of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf approached then Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, demanding action under Article 63(2) of the Constitution based on a statement by Mian Nawaz Sharif. Even at that time, when the matter was not resolved within thirty days, the Supreme Court took suo motu notice, which was constitutionally controversial since the apex court does not possess suo motu powers over another system of governance. He mentioned that he has encouraged both the government and the opposition to resolve matters through dialogue. Discussions were held on five key points, with both sides agreeing that foul language, sloganeering, and violations of human rights would be unacceptable in the House, and that Article 223 of the Constitution must be fully respected. The Speaker also noted that there has never been chaos in the House during a Chief Minister's speech. While the opposition has the constitutional right to protest, it is equally important to uphold parliamentary norms and the sanctity of the House. He reiterated that he does not believe in character assassination or humiliation of any member, nor will he prevent anyone from speaking. However, mob behaviour, aggressive conduct, and acts such as throwing books are completely unacceptable. Speaker shared that the Speaker of KP Assembly has sent him letter regarding the suspension of opposition members, to which detailed responses along with constitutional interpretations are being sent. In conclusion, the Speaker asserted that his goal is not to undermine anyone but to protect the sanctity of the House while remaining within the constitutional framework. He said that a decision will be made soon, and whatever is decided will be documented and agreed upon by both the government and the opposition to ensure more conducive atmosphere in the House moving forward. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
