Supreme Court's CB questions distribution of super tax funds to provinces
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday raised constitutional concerns over whether the federal government has the authority to allocate funds collected from the super tax to the provinces.
A five-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the case challenging the legality of the super tax and its distribution.
During the hearing, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned if the federal government was constitutionally permitted to distribute the super tax revenue — whether it amounted to Rs8 or Rs8 trillion — among the provinces.
Senior lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan began his arguments, stating that income tax, including the super tax, is collected without any specific allocation and is deposited into the national treasury.
He argued that according to the 1973 Constitution, tax proceeds are not meant for provincial distribution unless specified.
He explained that the super tax, introduced in 2016, was initially imposed to fund the rehabilitation of displaced persons.
It was extended in 2017 and made open-ended in 2019, but no funds had yet been spent on the stated purpose.
Makhdoom also emphasised that there is a clear difference between income tax and super tax, and that tax laws under the Income Tax Ordinance's Section 113 apply to minimum income as well.
Additional Attorney General Hafiz Ahsan clarified that the current proceedings did not concern the distribution of funds, and that no court orders had been issued on the matter.
Justice Aminuddin Khan asked Makhdoom how much longer he would need to conclude his arguments, to which the lawyer responded he would attempt to wrap up by the day after tomorrow.
The court adjourned the hearing till Wednesday, with Makhdoom to continue presenting his case.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Refusal to form full court draws flak for CJP
Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi speaks at a conference at the Federal Judicial Academy in Islamabad on July 25, 2025. SCREENGRAB Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi is facing criticism after the minutes of a three-member Supreme Court Committee revealed that he ignored a majority decision last year to form a full court to hear petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The SC committee, operating under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023 to form regular benches, was chaired by CJP Afridi in late October last year, with Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar as members. The majority — Justices Shah and Akhtar — had ordered the petitions be listed for hearing before a full court on November 4, 2024. According to the minutes, CJP Afridi argued that the committee lacked legal authority to direct the formation of a full court. He also consulted all judges individually and nine of the 13 supported the formation of a constitutional bench to hear the case. Now that the CJP's justification for the non-formation of a full court is in public domain, lawyers are questioning his conduct by asking who will determine how many judges had opposed and what question was placed before each judge. "How could judges have been consulted on a matter which, according to the statute, was not within their jurisdiction? Why every week all 23 judges are not consulted?" asked a senior lawyer, while speaking to The Express Tribune on the condition of anonymity. Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii said he failed to understand why an informal poll of other judges was taken by the CJP after the practice and procedure committeeas it then wasmade a majority decision. "I similarly fail to understand why such a determination, if it was needed after the committee decision, was not taken in a formal full court meeting. ''I also fail to understand why the CJP was willing to interpret the 26th Amendment in favour of the executive's influence, and reluctant to have the amendment's constitutionality first tested by a full sitting of his peers," Jaferii added. Advocate Asad Rahim Khan said the job of the chief justice, before everything else, is to preserve the independence of the judiciarynot to accept its subordination by the executive. "Should [former] chief justice Nasirul Mulk have put off a full court from hearing the challenge to the 21st Amendment, by arguing that Article 175(3) had already been amended, and there was nothing left for the court to do about it? For or against, the judges decide according to their consciences, and the law is settled. Again, that is their job," said the advocate. He said the greatest judicial regression in 30 years — where the amendment's very passage is under a cloud — can't be treated as a fait accompli. "Going by this logic, if the Constitution were subverted through a [provisional constitutional order] PCO or some other unlawful means tomorrow, that wouldn't be heard either, as it would be [illegally] protected in the text of the Constitution," he added. "The longer the amendment is undecided, the longer its automatic acceptance, and, as a result, the longer the judiciary's corrosion." Former additional attorney general Waqar Rana said it would have been just, fair and proper that 26th Amendment cases were listed for hearing prior to the meeting of the newly formed Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) which appointed a constitutional bench. The Amendment came on October 21, 2024 and former CJP Qazi Faez Isa retired on October 26, 2024. Rana said the CJP Afridi was appointed under the new constitutional dispensation. Thus any challenge to the 26 Amendment on any ground is now virtually impossible. "On the other hand when the 95th Amendment was challenged in India, the Indian Supreme Court did not hold the meeting of the country's judicial commission prior to the case fixation and the Indian SC, later, struck down that amendment," he added. Another senior lawyer opined that paragraph 3 of the CJP's response was bizarre. "It indicates that the SC does not believe in transparency and fears criticism. Public comment is the best form of accountability. Avoiding a full court meeting at that time shows the intent. "The matter should have been discussed in a full court meeting because the opinion of the majority of members of committee was binding. The law was violated by the CJP," he said. He asked how one member could violate the decision of a statutory committee empowered to decide how and which cases were to be fixed. "The statute did not give power to one member to overrule the majority decision. The other judges were not relevant and seeking their informal individual opinion was illegal and in outright violation of law," he added. Since November last year, the constitutional bench has been unable to decide the fate of the 26th Constitutional Amendment. In January, the constitutional bench took up the matter and adjourned the hearing for three weeks. Later, the bench did not hear the case. Interestingly, the creation of the constitutional bench itself is under challenge. Questions are being raised as to how the beneficiaries of 26th Constitutional Amendment can decide about their future. Now the situation has changed in the apex court. Eight new judges have been elevated to the apex court since February. Even most of them are included in the constitutional benches. Last November, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar urged the CJP to immediately fix hearings for the pleas challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. In their letter, the two judges, who are part of the committee responsible for fixing cases and forming benches under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act (2023), stated that the committee has decided to hear these constitutional petitions in a full court, with the initial hearing date set for Nov 4. The dispute began on October 31, when Justices Shah and Akhtar formally addressed a letter to CJP Afridi, urging him to hold a meeting under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act, 2023. With no response from the CJP, Justices Shah and Akhtar held an independent meeting in the latter's chambers to determine the next steps. Following this private session, the two justices decided by majority vote to bring the amendment petitions before a full court on November 4. They then sent a second letter to CJP Afridi, expressing their concerns over the postponement. According to the letter, the judges had previously informed the registrar of their decision on October 31 and instructed the registrar to publish the decision on the Supreme Court's official website. They argued that the petitions challenging the amendment demand a comprehensive review by the full court, as this matter involves constitutional implications that go beyond standard judicial concerns. By refraining from convening a full court, the chief justice had, according to some experts, signaled a cautious approach to the handling of such cases, potentially seeking to avoid judicial overreach or political entanglements.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
SC urges transformative overhaul to curb delays
The Supreme Court has called for transformative reforms that integrate technological innovation, administrative restructuring and disciplined case management to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases. In a four-page judgment authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, delivered while hearing a case challenging the auction of an immovable property, the apex court stressed that the judiciary must draw upon the global lessons and commit to the transformative reforms. "Courts must evolve into engines of timely, transparent, and citizen-focused justice," the ruling stressed. The auction in question occurred in 2011, and the petitioner raised objections the same year, which were dismissed. An appeal was filed before the high court, where it lingered for ten years, culminating in a decision in 2021. The matter then reached the SC in 2022 and is being addressed now, three years later, in 2025. The judgment noted that judicial systems worldwide have recognised that delay is not an intractable inevitability but a solvable institutional challenge. "Countries such as Singapore, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Estonia, Canada, China, Denmark, and Australia have undertaken comprehensive reforms combining technology, structural innovation, and procedural discipline to reduce backlog and enhance judicial efficiency," the court observed. "Through tools such as e-filing, real-time dashboards, automated scheduling, and transparent digital oversight, these jurisdictions have moved from being passive custodians of dockets to active managers of justice delivery. These international experiences underscore a basic truth: delays in justice are not inevitable; they are a product of institutional design, and can be remedied with vision, planning, and resolve." Justice Shah observed that delay in adjudication carries severe macroeconomic and societal consequences. "It deters investment, renders contracts illusory, and weakens the institutional legitimacy of the judiciary." "A justice system's credibility rests not only in the fairness of its decisions but also in the timeliness with which those decisions are rendered." It further noted that the issue was not merely administrative, but was also constitutional, highlighting that the right to access to justice was guaranteed by Articles 4, 9 and 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. "It encompasses within it the right to a fair and timely trial. Delay that renders a remedy ineffective or a right illusory amounts to a denial of due process. Justice, to be real, must be both just and timely." The judgment further highlighted the scale of the problem. "It is pertinent to highlight that over 2.2 million cases are currently pending before courts across Pakistan, including approximately 55,941 cases before this Court alone, in spite of enhancing the number of judges at the Court. These figures are not abstract; they represent disputes suspended in time." The court noted that delay is not merely the result of docket congestion or branch-level inefficiencies; it is a deeper structural challenge of judicial governance. "The Court, as a matter of institutional policy and constitutional responsibility, must urgently transition toward a modern, responsive, and intelligent case management framework." "Such a system must, at a minimum, ensure: the early fixation of cases on a non-discriminatory basis; the elimination of 'queue-jumping' and preferential scheduling; the prioritization of matters involving constitutional, economic, or national importance without compromising the timely resolution of individual claims; the implementation of age-tracking protocols to automatically identify dormant cases; and the judicious use of Artificial Intelligence ('AI') tools to assist in scheduling and triage while preserving the sanctity of judicial discretion." In the present case, the court noted that the petitioner's appeal remained pending before the high court for ten years. "It is beyond cavil that delay in adjudicating cases by the courts at any tier of the justice system corrodes public confidence in the judiciary, undermines the rule of law, and disproportionately harms the weak and vulnerable who cannot afford the cost of prolonged litigation," the judgment cautioned.
Express Tribune
13 hours ago
- Express Tribune
CJP faces scrutiny over ignoring full court order in 26th Amendment case
Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi is facing criticism after Supreme Court (SC) committee minutes revealed that he ignored a majority decision last year to form a full court to hear petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The three-member committee, operating under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023 to form regular benches, was chaired by CJP Afridi in late October last year, with Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar as members. The majority — Justices Shah and Munib — had ordered the petitions be fixed before a full court on November 4, 2024. According to the minutes, CJP Afridi argued the committee lacked legal authority to direct the formation of a full court. He also consulted all judges individually and nine of the 13 supported the formation of a constitutional bench to hear the case. Now that the CJP's justification for the non-formation of a full court is in public domain, lawyers are questioning his conduct by asking who will determine how many judges had opposed and what question was placed before each judge. "How could judges have been consulted on a matter which, according to the statute, was not within their jurisdiction? Why every week all 23 are not consulted?" asked a lawyer, speaking to The Express Tribune on the condition of anonymity. Likewise, advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii said he failed to understand why an informal poll of other judges was taken by the CJP after the practice and procedure committee - as it then was - had made a majority decision. "I similarly fail to understand why such a determination, if it was needed after the committee decision, was not taken in a formal full court meeting. I also fail to understand why the CJP was willing to interpret the 26th Amendment in favour of the executive's influence, and reluctant to have the Amendment's constitutionality first tested by a full sitting of his peers," said advocate Jaferii. Read: SC judges urge CJP to call full court on 26th Amendment pleas Meanwhile, advocate Asad Rahim Khan said that the job of the chief justice, before everything else, is to preserve the independence of the judiciary; not to accept its subordination by the executive. "Should [former] chief justice Nasirul Mulk have put off a full court from hearing the challenge to the 21st Amendment, by arguing that Article 175(3) had already been amended, and there was nothing left for the Court to do about it? For or against, the judges decided according to their consciences, and the law was settled. Again, that was their job," said the advocate. He further said that the greatest judicial regression in 30 years – where the amendment's very passage is under a cloud – can't be treated as a fait accompli. "Going by this logic, if the Constitution were subverted through a [provisional constitutional order] PCO or some other unlawful means tomorrow, that wouldn't be heard either, as it would be [illegally] protected in the text of the Constitution," he added. The longer the amendment is undecided, the longer its automatic acceptance, and, as a result, the longer the judiciary's corrosion. Another senior lawyer opined that paragraph three of the CJP's response was bizarre. "It indicates that SC does not believe in transparency and fears criticism. Public comment is the best form of accountability. Avoiding a full court meeting at that time shows the intent. The matter should have been discussed in Full Court meeting because opinion of majority of members of committee was binding. The law was violated by the CJP," said the senior lawyer, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He asked how one member could violate the decision of a statutory committee empowered to decide how and which cases were to be fixed. The statute did not give power to one member to overrule the majority decision. The other judges were not relevant and seeking their informal individual opinion was illegal and in out right violation of law, he said. Since November last year, the constitutional bench is unable to decide the fate of 26th Constitutional Amendment. In January, the constitutional bench took up the matter and adjourned the hearing for three weeks. Later, the bench did not hear the case. Interestingly, the creation of constitutional bench itself is under challenge. Questions are being raised as to how the beneficiaries of 26th Constitutional Amendment can decide about their future. Read more: Judicial reforms shape SC's first constitutional bench Now the situation has changed in the apex court. Eight new judges are elevated to the apex court since February. Even most of them are included in the constitutional benches. Last November, SC judges Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar urged the CJP to immediately fix hearings for the pleas challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. In their letter, the two judges, who are part of the committee responsible for fixing cases and forming benches under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act (2023), stated that the committee has decided to hear these constitutional petitions in a full court, with the initial hearing date set for November 4. The dispute began on October 31, when Justices Shah and Akhtar formally addressed a letter to CJP Afridi, urging him to hold a meeting under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023. With no response from the CJP, Justices Shah and Akhtar held an independent meeting in the latter's chambers to determine the next steps. Following this private session, the two justices decided by majority vote to bring the amendment petitions before a full court on November 4. They then sent a second letter to CJP Afridi, expressing their concerns over the postponement. According to the letter, the judges had previously informed the registrar of their decision on October 31 and instructed the registrar to publish the decision on the Supreme Court's official website. They argued that the petitions challenging the amendment demand a comprehensive review by the full court, as this matter involves constitutional implications that go beyond standard judicial concerns. By refraining from convening a full court, the chief justice had, according to some experts, signaled a cautious approach to the handling of such cases, potentially seeking to avoid judicial overreach or political entanglements.
