IHC steps in to stop on-campus drug use
The capital's high court has stopped direct delivery of courier and goods ordered online including food to students of the educational institutions in Islamabad to prevent supply of narcotics.
Islamabad High Court's (IHC) Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas on Monday resumed hearing a petition seeking changes in curricula to create awareness among children and young people about the adverse effects of drugs and narcotic substances.
During the hearing, Justice Minhas asked officials whether they knew how narcotics made its way to schools, colleges and universities. He remarked that drugs are being delivered to schools and colleges through couriers and delivery personnel.
"Check and report which schools and colleges are receiving what kind of deliveries. Children order pizza and food items and along with them, they also get drugs delivered. A ban must be imposed on direct deliveries by all delivery personnel," he said.
Justice Minhas ordered authorities to stop direct delivery to students and to take action against the educational institutions that do not comply.
"Implement this and present a report on the next hearing. Check which schools and colleges are frequently receiving direct deliveries. Take action against those institutions that do not comply," he said.
During the hearing, the judge also asked if the National Anti-Narcotics Council (NANC) had been formed. Under the National Narcotics Policy, 2010, the NANC was to be set up in order to evaluate and review anti-narcotics policy.
The judge noted that the NANC was to be a high-powered council to work under the chairmanship of the prime minister with the chief ministers of the provinces as its members. The IHC ordered the secretary cabinet affairs to submit a report in this regard and adjourned the hearing until May 28.
At an earlier hearingon April 8 the Islamabad police had admitted in a report that they prioritize the security of VIPs over making efforts to curb the growing menace of drug use in educational institutions.
The judge had expressed displeasure at the police's stance and issued a show-cause notice to the assistant inspector general (operations), directing him to explain why VIP security took precedence over student safety and anti-narcotics operations, said a news report.
WITH INPUT FROM NEWS DESK
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
6 hours ago
- Business Recorder
FBR recovers Rs600bn as IHC vacates stay orders in 270 cases
ISLAMABAD: In the last few months, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has vacated stay orders in 270 tax-related cases that had incapacitated Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to recover more than Rs600 billion. These 270 tax-related cases were pending in the IHC for over two decades. According to the details, three IHC division benches decided these tax-related matters. The division bench of Justice Mohammad Azam Khan and Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas decided an overwhelming majority of 173 of tax cases involving Rs424bn. Another IHC bench comprising Justice Babar Sattar and Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan cleared 94 cases in which over Rs150bn recoveries were stalled. A bench comprising acting IHC Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas lifted the stay orders and decided three petitions that had in 2023 restrained the FBR to collect Rs36bn. A two-member division bench comprising Justice Mohammad Azam Khan and Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas decided 125 cases related to Income Tax References, Sales Tax References and Foreign Exchange Regulations Act. The government's recoverable Rs290.51bn were stuck in 125 cases related to ITR. 36 STR cases involved recovery of Rs131.55bn while Rs3.16bn were recoverable in 12 cases related to FERA. In February this year the Prime Minister met with Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi to discuss the agenda of the upcoming meeting of the National Judicial Policy Making Committee. During the meeting, the Prime Minister requested the CJP for expeditious disposal of tax-related cases. The IMF Governance and Diagnostic Assessment teams visited Pakistan to examine the governance structure of several ministries related to fiscal policy, tax policy, corruption, procurement, audits, and anti-money laundering. The NJPMC also advised for swift disposal of the tax-related matters, in its meeting held in April, asking the high courts to constitute special benches for expeditious disposal of tax-related cases. Following NJPMC's advice and directions issued by the apex court in the tax matters, the IHC Judicial Registrar put up a note before the acting CJ for consolidation of all the matters. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
7 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Gohar confident about PTI founder's bail
BUNER: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Barrister Gohar, expressed confidence that the party's founder Imran Khan will secure bail, emphasising that June 11 is a crucial date in this regard. Speaking to a private television channel, he extended Eid greetings to all Pakistanis, Palestinian brothers, and soldiers fighting at the borders. He noted that this was the fourth Eid without Imran Khan's presence, yet his ideology continues to guide the party. Gohar announced that PTI will collaborate with opposition parties to launch a movement, which will be led by the party's 'pattern-in-chief' from jail. He urged opposition parties to join PTI for the sake of the country's survival and security. Addressing the detention of Bushra Bibi, he claimed she is being held in jail without any charges to pressure the PTI founder. He said that no deals will be made for the party founder's release. It is important to mention here that the Islamabad High Court (IHC) earlier postponed the hearing of petitions requesting the suspension of sentences for Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi in the 190 million Pound Al-Qadir Trust case until June 11.
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Business Recorder
Amendments to orders for accuracy: Commissioner IR has powers under Sec 221(1) of IT law: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled that the Commissioner Inland Revenue has jurisdiction under Section 221(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to amend the orders by rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. The 24-page judgment, authored by Justice Munib Akhtar, set aside the impugned judgments of the Lahore High Court (LHC) and the Islamabad High Court (IHC). It held; 'the tax references out of which these matters arise shall be deemed pending in the respective High Courts and the questions of law raised therein decided in accordance with law and consistently with this judgment.' Section 122 (5A) ITO: Power granted to IR commissioners is not without boundaries: ATIR 'CPLA 431-L/2023 involves questions of law other than the one decided by this judgment. This leave petition is returned to the office to be fixed in the ordinary course before an appropriate Bench,' it also said. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Munib Akhtar, and comprising Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Shahid Waheed heard the department (FBR) petitions against the LHC and IHC decisions. Babar Bilal appeared in CPLA Nos.4583 to 4585/2023. The judgment noted that the matters relating to the deemed assessment order (and indeed, the deemed amended assessment order) fall only and always within the first part (of Mehreen Zaibun Nisa), with all ensuing 'inevitable corollaries' applying accordingly. One of these is that the deemed orders of both kinds must be regarded as orders 'passed' by the Commissioner within the meaning, and for the purposes of, Section 221(1). 'The Commissioner therefore has the jurisdiction to amend the orders by rectifying any mistake apparent from the record'. The judgment decided the question; 'Whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction under subsection (1) of Section 221 of the 2001 Ordinance to amend, in exercise of the power thereby conferred and, in the manner, and to the extent therein stated, what is known as a deemed assessment order under s. 120 to rectify a mistake apparent from the record?', in favour of the Commissioner and against the taxpayers. The High Courts had answered the question in the negative. The Department urged that both the courts erred materially in this regard. The taxpayers pray that the impugned judgments be upheld as having reached the correct conclusion in law. The judgment confirmed that the error made by the High Courts was to conflate the two deeming provisions into one. It was on account of this mistake that both judgments, whose reasoning run in parallel, concluded that there was no application of mind by the Commissioner and that the mistake always lay where, and by whom, in fact made, i.e., the taxpayer. However, once this unfortunate fusing is unpacked, and what the subsection actually does and require is realized, the mistake becomes apparent. Had the subsection only contained the deeming required by clause (b), then there could be merit to what the learned High Courts concluded. In such a situation, the only 'state of affairs' required to be imagined would be the deemed issuance of an assessment order. It could perhaps then be said that the deeming did not reach or touch any mistake to be found as a matter of fact in the return, and hence the deemed assessment order did not deal with any such thing. In this situation the attribution of the mistake, being outside the scope (or beyond the limit) of the legal fiction could be said to lie where, and by whom, actually made as a matter of fact. But that of course is not the case. There is also the (precedent) deeming required by clause (a). Once that is kept in mind then the inevitable conclusion is that there was, as a matter of law, a (deemed) application of mind by the Commissioner. Since it operated (as it could only) on the return, an inevitable corollary is that it is the whole of it, mistakes and all, that is the assessment (deemed) to have been made. And it is the (deemed) assessment so made that then results in the (deemed) issuance of the assessment order. In our view, it is only in terms of this bifurcation that subsection (1) can be properly understood and applied. A rolling up of the two clauses into one, with respect, led to the error into which both the learned High Courts fell. Thus, in the principal LHC judgment much emphasis was placed on s. 221(1) requiring that the order be 'passed' by the Commissioner. The matters before the Supreme Court arose under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 in relation to the jurisdiction, under subsection (1) of Section 221, of the Commissioner to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record and thereby amend what is known as a deemed assessment order under s. Most of these matters come from the Lahore High Court, where the principal judgment is dated 27.04.2022. That decision disposed of eight tax references that had been filed by the Commissioner and was followed in all the other matters in the said High Court by various orders of different dates. Islamabad High Court, where the principal judgment is dated 20.09.2023 which disposed of tax references filed by the Department. Both High Courts reached the same conclusion on the question now before the Court and therefore, all these matters were heard together and are being decided by this judgment. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
