'Judges' transfer cleared by 4 judicial forums'
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar on Monday raised questions over the claim that transfer of three provincial high court judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) was interference on part of the executive in judicial affairs, noting that every transfer was made after approval of four different judges.
However, some members of the constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court, hearing petitions filed against the transfer and the subsequent change in the IHC judges' seniority list, stated the executive did keep the chief justicesof Pakistan and respective high courtsin dark about the seniority issue. On Monday, a five-member CB led by Justice Mazhar, heard the judges' transfer case.
During the hearing, Karachi Bar's lawyer Faisal Siddiqi argued that the IHC was established under Article 175 of the Constitution, which pertains only to the provinces regarding the appointment of judges.
He said judges cannot be transferred to the IHC, and even if a transfer does occur, it cannot be permanent nor would a fresh oath be required upon return of that judge to his original high court. Justice Mazhar asked whether Article 200 has become ineffective after the enforcement of Article 175-A. Siddiqi responded that under the current transfer system, the powers of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) are being undermined, which is against the spirit of the Constitution.
Siddiqi stated that seniority develops over decades and tampering with it overnight through executive powers is an authoritarian move.
Justice Mazhar noted that the transfer process involves approvals at four stages: the approval of the chief justice of the concerned high court, the approval of the chief justice of the receiving high court, the approval of the judge being transferred, and the approval of the chief justice of Pakistan.
"If any one of them refuses, the transfer cannot proceed. If the process were in the hands of the executive, it would be a different matter, but here it requires the approval of four judicial forums."
Siddiqi told the court that the transfer was made with bad faith and that the judiciary was kept in the dark about the sensitive issue of seniority.
Attorney-General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan argued that under Article 200, the transfer of judges can be permanent or temporary. A temporary transfer is mentioned in the notification and comes with additional benefits, while a permanent transfer entitles the judge to official residence.
Justice Shakeel Ahmed questioned whether the oath and seniority of judges are to be decided by the law secretary. He asked whether anyone had sought the law secretary's opinion on the matter. "Why did the law secretary include clarifications on seniority and oath in the final summary?
He remarked that the need for the law secretary to clarify that transferred judges do not need to take a new oath raises concerns. The Supreme Court then adjourned the hearing until today (Tuesday).
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
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
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Sentence suspension in £190m case: IHC grants 7-day to NAB for appointing special prosecutor in IK, Bushra's pleas
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) granted seven days to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for appointing special prosecutor in Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his spouse Bushra Bibi's appeals seeking suspension of their sentence in £190 million case. A two-member bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif, on Thursday, heard the case and adjourned the hearing until June 11, when the NAB told the court that it needed time to prepare arguments for the case. During the hearing, Barrister Salman Safdar, representing the Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi argued that the petitions for suspension of the sentence were heard, after much prayers and supplications, adding that today's date has not been given easily. NAB Prosecutor Rafay Maqsood appeared before the court and said that his request is that the federal government had to appoint a special prosecutor in this case but he has not been appointed yet. Rafay prayed the court to grant four week, stating that they had received the notice yesterday. The acting chief justice said for issuing notification for the prosecution team seven days are enough. Salman Safdar contended that more than 300 cases have been filed against the founder of PTI and the trial court sentenced him. Lawyer Latif Khosa said 'the PTI founder is in jail without any evidence; the PTI founder neither will go abroad nor is there any risk of tampering with the record.' The court directed the NAB prosecution team to notify the special prosecutor within seven days and adjourned the hearing until June 11. In this matter, founder PTI Imran Khan and his spouse Bushra Bibi approached the IHC seeking suspension of their sentences in the £190 million case. They moved the court through their counsel Barrister Salman Safdar and cited the state and the chairman NAB as respondents. Counsel Salman stated in petition that the petitioners were convicted by the Accountability Court (I) Islamabad through judgment dated 17.01.2025, wherein, they were held guilty for commission of offence of corruption and corrupt practices as defined u/s 9(a)(ii)(iv)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and Imran was sentenced u/s 10(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 14 years and fine amounting to Rs1,000,000. Through the instant petition, they sought indulgence of this court for 'Suspension' of conviction and sentence awarded to them, till the final disposal of the main appeal already filed in the IHC. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Selection of CEC chief, ECP members: PTI nominates members for parliamentary body
ISLAMABAD: The opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Thursday formally nominated its members for the parliamentary committee tasked with selecting the new chief election commissioner (CEC) and two members of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). In a statement on X, the opposition leader in National Assembly Omar Ayub posted a June 2 letter addressed to National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq, in which PTI nominated four National Assembly members and two senators for the committee. The nominees include MNAs Asad Qaiser, Gohar Ali Khan, Sahibzada Hamid Raza, Latif Khosa, along with senators Shibli Faraz and Allama Raja Nasir. The move comes after Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif invited the opposition leader for consultations on appointing a new CEC, following the expiration of the terms of the current CEC Sikandar Sultan Raja and two ECP members from Sindh and Balochistan on January 26, 2025. The premier's letter highlighted that despite their terms ending, the incumbents have continued to perform duties under Article 215 of the Constitution. According to Article 213 of the Constitution, the prime minister and opposition leader must send three names for each position to the president by mutual consensus. If no consensus is reached, names are submitted to a 12-member parliamentary committee equally representing the treasury and opposition benches, which then recommends a name to the president. The PTI's nominations follow procedural consultations within the party and were announced a day after the prime minister's invitation for dialogue with the opposition. The nominations are part of the constitutionally mandated process under Article 213(2B) for appointing the CEC and members from Sindh and Balochistan. The appointments are pending amid deep political polarisation in the country, with little prior engagement reported between government and opposition leaders on the matter. PTI had earlier filed a petition with the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in March, challenging the delay in appointing a new CEC. The petition named the federal government, Senate chairman, National Assembly speaker, and ECP as respondents, alleging constitutional violations due to the delay. It requested the court to compel relevant authorities to form the parliamentary committee and hold meaningful consultations under Article 213. Meanwhile, two other ECP members from Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa continue their terms until 2027, ensuring partial continuity within the commission. The selection process remains critical as the ECP is responsible for overseeing the transparency and conduct of elections in Pakistan. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
