Latest news with #HighCourts
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Politics
- 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
NDTV
4 days ago
- General
- NDTV
"Judges Must Be Free": Chief Justice's Big Remark On Collegium System"
New Delhi: The government superseded the seniormost judges twice while appointing the Chief Justice of India when it had the final say in judges' appointment, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai has said. The Chief Justice was speaking on 'Maintaining Judicial Legitimacy and Public Confidence' at a roundtable organised by the UK Supreme Court. The roundtable was also attended by Justice Vikram Nath, Baroness Carr, the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales and George Leggatt, judge of the Supreme Court of the UK. "In India, a key point of contention has been the question of who holds primacy in judicial appointments. Until 1993, it was the executive that had the final say in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. During this period, the executive twice superseded the senior-most judges in appointing the Chief Justice of India, which went against established tradition," the Chief Justice said. The two judges superseded for the top post are Justice Syed Jafar Imam and Justice Hans Raj Khanna. Justice Imam could not be elevated to the top post in 1964 because he was suffering from health issues and the then Jawaharlal Nehru government elevated Justice PB Gajendragadkar. Justice Khanna faced the Indira Gandhi government's ire in 1977, when he lost the Chief Justice post months after his dissenting judgment in the ADM Jabalpur vs Shiv Kant Shukla case, in which he ruled that fundamental rights cannot be suspended even during a national emergency. "In response, the Supreme Court of India, in its judgments of 1993 and 1998, interpreted the constitutional provisions concerning the appointment of judges to establish that the Chief Justice of India, along with the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, would form a collegium responsible for recommending appointments to the Supreme Court," he added. The Chief Justice said the Supreme Court in 2015 struck down the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act. The Act, he said, diluted the independence of the judiciary by giving primacy to the executive in judicial appointments. "There may be criticisms of the collegium system, but any solution must not come at the cost of judicial independence. Judges must be free from external control," he said. The Narendra Modi government had pushed for the replacement of the Collegium system. Then Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had said the system was "alien" to the Constitution. The Chief Justice also said that courts must have the power of independent judicial review, allowing judges to assess the constitutionality of laws and government actions that conflict with the provisions of the Constitution or established constitutional principles. Chief Justice On Ex Judges Contesting Elections Chief Justice Gavai said a judge taking up a government post, or resigning and contesting elections raises ethical concerns. "In India, judges are subject to a fixed retirement age. If a judge takes up another appointment with the government immediately after retirement, or resigns from the bench to contest elections, it raises significant ethical concerns and invites public scrutiny. A judge contesting an election for a political office can lead to doubts regarding the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, as it may be seen as a conflict of interest or as an attempt to gain favour with the government. The timing and nature of such post-retirement engagements could undermine the public's trust in the judiciary's integrity, as it could create a perception that judicial decisions were influenced by the prospect of future government appointments or political involvement," the Chief Justice said. "In light of this, many of my colleagues and I have publicly pledged not to accept any post-retirement roles or positions from the government. This commitment is an effort to preserve the credibility and independence of the judiciary," he said.
Arabian Post
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Arabian Post
Impeachment Rarely Works As An Effective Deterrent Against Judicial Misconduct
By K Raveendran The impeachment of Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma in the wake of burnt notes being discovered from his residence appears to be a certainty. However, going by past experience, impeachment has rarely functioned as an effective deterrent against judicial misconduct in India. In the history of Indian judiciary, only five formal impeachment and removal proceedings have ever been initiated against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. This, however, by no means suggests that the judiciary is largely free of corruption or misconduct; rather it reveals how impeachment has functioned more as a symbolic tool than as an effective deterrent against judicial impropriety. The process of impeachment is exceptionally rigorous. It requires not just a special majority in each House of Parliament but also an inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, if the motion is admitted. The special majority, as defined, demands a majority of the total membership of the House and two-thirds of those present and voting. Such a high threshold ensures that only the most egregious instances of judicial misconduct might proceed to actual removal, thereby protecting judges from political vendetta. However, this also severely limits the practical utility of impeachment as a deterrent mechanism. The case of Justice V. Ramaswami in 1993 was the first significant test of the impeachment provisions. Accused of financial and administrative irregularities during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, an inquiry committee found him guilty. However, despite the damning report, the motion to impeach him failed in the Lok Sabha because the ruling Congress party abstained from voting, thereby denying the motion the required two-thirds majority. The episode starkly exposed the political vulnerabilities of the impeachment process. The failure to act decisively, even when guilt was established, sent a troubling signal: that the fate of judges accused of misconduct could be determined not by the strength of evidence but by partisan political considerations. Justice Soumitra Sen's case in 2011 provides a contrast. Accused of misappropriation of funds while acting as a court-appointed receiver before his elevation to the bench, he became the first judge to be impeached by the Rajya Sabha. However, before the House could take up the motion, Sen resigned. His resignation effectively halted the process, as impeachment can only be carried out against sitting judges. While some may view his resignation as an admission of guilt and an appropriate end, it also underscores a structural loophole — a judge can preempt removal by stepping down, avoiding formal accountability and preserving post-retirement privileges. This again undercuts impeachment's value as a true deterrent. Another illustrative case is that of Justice P.D. Dinakaran, who faced serious allegations of corruption, land-grab, and abuse of office. A judicial panel was constituted to investigate, but Dinakaran chose to resign in 2011 before the impeachment motion could be moved. Much like Sen's case, this resignation allowed Dinakaran to avoid the ignominy of removal while simultaneously frustrating any opportunity to establish institutional accountability through due process. In effect, resignation becomes an escape hatch for judges under scrutiny, preventing the larger objective of upholding judicial integrity from being fulfilled. The pattern of impeachment motions reveals a mix of serious misconduct, political motivations, and procedural stalemates. In 2015, Justice J.B. Pardiwala of the Gujarat High Court faced an impeachment notice due to controversial remarks on reservation policies. Though the motion gained the support of 58 Rajya Sabha members, it did not progress further, partly because the remarks were later expunged. This case raises questions about the threshold for initiating impeachment and whether judicial opinions — controversial as they may be — should form the basis for such an extreme remedy. The danger here is that impeachment could be weaponized to target ideological or jurisprudential differences rather than clear cases of misconduct, which could erode judicial independence. The same year, another motion was initiated against Justice S.K. Gangele, who faced allegations of sexual harassment by a former judge. A committee of inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act found insufficient evidence to support the charges, and the motion was dropped. While the inquiry's outcome upheld procedural fairness, the case brought to light the difficulty in substantiating serious but often hard-to-prove allegations against sitting judges. Moreover, the high evidentiary bar combined with a stringent majority requirement in Parliament effectively discourages the initiation of impeachment even in cases that might warrant closer scrutiny. In 2017, an impeachment motion was moved against Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court. Accusations of abuse of power and casteist threats were levelled against him, and opposition MPs submitted a motion to the Rajya Sabha. Despite this, the matter did not progress to the final stages, again reflecting either a political reluctance or the cumbersome nature of the process. While the procedural safeguards are meant to protect judges from frivolous attacks, they simultaneously dilute the threat of consequences, particularly when the accused judge is strategically placed or politically shielded. Perhaps the most politically sensitive instance occurred in 2018, when opposition parties attempted to initiate impeachment proceedings against then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. Allegations ranged from impropriety in the allocation of cases to more general concerns over judicial functioning. While the motion was eventually rejected by the Vice President on grounds of insufficient merit, the episode reflected a broader sense of judicial crisis and institutional mistrust. Regardless of the specific merits, the mere fact that impeachment was contemplated against a sitting Chief Justice indicates how impeachment can also serve as a tool for political signalling rather than a strictly legal recourse. Overall, these examples reveal that impeachment has rarely functioned as an effective deterrent. The excessively high procedural thresholds, the option for resignation, and the overlap with partisan politics render the process merely symbolic. For impeachment to be a credible deterrent, it must be both operationally viable and procedurally sound — characteristics it currently lacks. Most motions either fail to gain momentum, are defeated due to political manoeuvring, or are short-circuited by resignations. Consequently, judges facing serious allegations often continue without facing institutional consequences, weakening public trust in the judiciary's accountability mechanisms. (IPA Service)
The Hindu
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Top news of the day: May 28, 2025
More than 40 MLAs say ready to form new government in Manipur, converge at Imphal Raj Bhavan More than 40 MLAs are ready to form a new government in Manipur and converged on Wednesday (May 28, 2025) at the Imphal Raj Bhawan to meet the Governor. The conflict-scarred State has been under President's Rule since February 13. According to PTI, BJP legislator Thokchom Radheshyam Singh claimed that 44 legislators were ready to form the government, after his meeting with Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla. Mr. Singh, along with nine other MLAs, met the Governor at the Raj Bhavan.'Forty-four MLAs are ready to form a government as per the wishes of the people. We have conveyed this to the governor. We also discussed what solutions can be there for the issue,' he said. Series of earthquakes strike Manipur A series of earthquakes struck Manipur on Wednesday, the strongest one being 5.2 magnitude, according to the National Centre for Seismology. 'The earthquake of 5.2 magnitude struck Churachandpur district at 1.54 a.m.,' it said. 'A second one of 2.5 magnitude hit Noney district at 2.26 a.m., while a third one of 3.9 magnitude struck Churachandpur at 10.23 a.m.,' it added. 'No casualties or damage have been reported so far,' officials said. Ashoka University professor's interim bail extended; SC says he has right to speech but can't comment on FIRs The Supreme Court on Wednesday told Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, accused of making contentious social media posts on Operation Sindoor, that there was no impediment on his right to speech and expression, but he can't post anything online with respect to the cases against him. A partial working day Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta refused to modify as of now, the interim bail condition imposed on him on May 21 that he will not write any online post, article or make any oral speech related to either of the two online posts, which are subject matter of the investigation. Supreme Court collegium recommends transfer of Chief Justices of Rajasthan, Tripura, Jharkhand and Madras High Courts The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfers of four Chief Justices from the High Courts of Madras, Rajasthan, Tripura and Jharkhand. The Collegium, headed by the Chief Justice of India, has proposed the transfer of Madras High Court Chief Justice K.R. Shriram to Rajasthan. In return, Rajasthan Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava was recommended to head the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfers of four Chief Justices from the High Courts of Madras, Rajasthan, Tripura and Jharkhand. Supreme Court continues stay on arrest of M.P. Minister Vijay Shah The Supreme Court on Wednesday extended the operation of its interim order protecting Madhya Pradesh Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah from arrest. Mr. Shah is facing criminal proceedings for his derogatory remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who briefed the media during Operation Sindoor. The Minister has repeatedly apologised for the remarks. Indian Embassy in Iran says taken up missing Indians' case with Iranian authorities The Indian Embassy on Wednesday said it has strongly taken up with Iranian authorities the case of three missing Indian citizens, all from the same family, who went missing after reaching Iran. 'Family members of three Indian citizens have informed the Embassy of India that their relatives are missing after having travelled to Iran,' the Embassy said in a post on X. The Embassy did not, however, clarify when and where the three Indians went missing in Iran. Congress leader Udit Raj dubs Shashi Tharoor 'super spokesperson of BJP' Congress leader Udit Raj on Wednesday criticised his party colleague and Lok Sabha MP Shashi Tharoor over his statement in Panama as part of the multi-party delegation and called him a 'spokesperson for the publicity stunts of the BJP'.Mr. Raj further accused the Central government of taking credit for the actions of the Indian Armed Forces. 'Does he (Tharoor) even know what the earlier governments used to do? They (the Central government) are taking credit for the Indian Armed Forces. Shashi Tharoor has become the spokesperson for the publicity stunts of the BJP,' Mr. Raj said. Kamal Haasan sparks outrage with 'Kannada came from Tamil' claim, BJP demands apology Actor and politician Kamal Haasan has ignited a political firestorm with his recent statement claiming that the Kannada language 'was born out of Tamil.' The remark, made during the audio launch of his upcoming film Thug Life in Chennai, has drawn fierce backlash in Karnataka, particularly from the BJP and pro-Kannada groups who demanded an immediate and unconditional apology. While sharing the stage with Kannada actor Shivarajkumar, Haasan opened his speech with 'Uyire Urave Tamizhe' ('My life, and my family, is in Tamil language'), before making the now-controversial remark: 'Your language (Kannada) was born out of Tamil, so you too are included.' Intended perhaps as a gesture of cultural unity, the comment has since instead stirred accusations of linguistic arrogance and disrespect. Haryana to conduct drills under 'Operation Shield' across all 22 districts on May 29 The Haryana government will conduct a civil defence exercise, named Operation Shield, on Thursday (May 29), across all 22 of the State's districts to vet its emergency preparedness. Scheduled to take place between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m., the drill is being organised under the guidance of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, to simulate critical incidents such as air raids, drone attacks, and other wartime scenarios in the light of current national security concerns, an official said. Cabinet approves two multi-tracking railway projects in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA), chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, approved two multi-tracking railway projects to ensure faster transportation of both passengers and goods, the government said on Wednesday. It added that these projects include the third and fourth lines between Ratlam-Nagda and the fourth line between Wardha-Balharshah. According to a government statement, the total estimated cost of the projects is ₹3,399 crore and will be completed by 2029-30. J&K statehood talks still alive, regardless of Pahalgam attack: Omar Abdullah Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on Wednesday said the April 22 Pahalgam attack has not stalled the conversation around the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir and that he had raised the issue at the recent meeting of the NITI Aayog governing council. 'No, not at all. If you were to take out the formal speech that circulated in the NITI Aayog meeting, you will find a categorical mention for return of statehood in that ... which was given to the Honourable Prime Minister and all the members of the governing council of the NITI Aayog,' Mr. Abdullah told reporters in this tourist resort of north Kashmir, 52 kilometres from Srinagar. Increased outward FDI by Indian companies 'warrants attention': Finance Ministry Even as Indian companies turn 'cautious' on investing within the country, and the global economic scenario remains uncertain, the increased outward foreign direct investment by Indian companies 'warrants attention', the Ministry of Finance has noted in a new report. The Hindu had previously reported how the Reserve Bank of India's data showed that, in 2024-25, Indian companies invested a total of $29.2 billion in other countries, 75% higher than the previous year, which was a major contributor towards India's net foreign direct investment (FDI) figure falling 96% to just $0.4 billion. 'Using every tool to vet', says U.S. amid reports of new student visa interviews freeze The U.S. said it is using 'every tool in our tool chest' to vet those coming into the country, including students, amid reports the Trump administration is ordering its embassies and consular sections abroad to halt scheduling new student visa interviews as it considers social media vetting for such individuals. 'The Trump administration is weighing requiring all foreign students applying to study in the United States to undergo social media vetting,' a news report in Politico said. Israeli forces fire on crowd gathered at Gaza aid site; one killed, 48 injured The Gaza Health Ministry said Wednesday that one person was killed and another 48 wounded when Israeli forces opened fire on crowds overrunning a new aid distribution site in Gaza. The melee happened on Tuesday (May 27) at a new site established by an Israeli and US-backed foundation. A U.N. official had said earlier that 47 people were wounded, mostly by gunfire. Ajith Sunghay, the head of the UN Human Rights Office in the Palestinian territories told reporters in Geneva: 'There are about 47 people who have been injured', adding that 'most of those injured are due to gunshots', and that 'it was shooting from the IDF'. South Korean students warned over social media posts amid Trump administration crackdown President Donald Trump's administration is raising scrutiny over the social media posts of South Korean students in the United States or who plan to study there,' the students and agencies that support them said. That has triggered concerns for parents of students studying or planning to study in the United States. South Korean students are the third-largest among international students in the U.S., behind those from India and China. Punjab Kings, RCB aim to take a step closer to the summit In previous IPL seasons, the overarching themes linking Punjab Kings and Royal Challengers Bengaluru were achingly similar. They plunged from one season to another without ever getting a chance to hoist the glittering trophy, engulfed by tears, heartbreak and anguish that turned into deep-rooted emotions. They have struck an analogous chord in the 18th edition too. But in a refreshing departure from years gone by, both teams can savour being among the standout teams this time and not allowing past baggage to weigh them down. Irrefutable evidence lies in their top-two finish, which has earned them rightful spots in Qualifier 1 at the Maharaja Yadavindra Singh Stadium.
News18
20-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
‘Judges Also Humans, Keep Learning': Supreme Court Justice Admits Error In Ruling
Last Updated: The Supreme Court said that the High Courts must keep in mind that the Domestic Violence Act is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to women. Justice Abhay S Oka of Supreme Court has said that judges are also human beings and are susceptible to errors in their rulings. He openly admitted to making a mistake while ruling in a case as a Bombay HC judge in 2016 relating to interpretation of the Domestic Violence Act. He emphasised that judicial work involves continuous learning. Justice Oka had taken a contrary view on Section 12(1) of Domestic Violence Act — which allows an aggrieved woman to seek relief, such as compensation, from a magistrate — which was later found to be incorrect by a full bench of the Bombay High Court. Later clarifying the law, the top court said that the High Courts must keep in mind that the Domestic Violence Act is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to women who suffer from domestic violence. 'Before we part with this Judgment, we must mention here that one of us is a party to a Judgment dated of the Bombay High Court in which the view taken is that a remedy under Section 482 of the CrPC is not available for quashing the proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act,2005. This view was found to be incorrect by a full Bench of the same High Court. As judges, we are duty-bound to correct our mistakes in properly constituted proceedings," the Supreme Court said, according to media reports. 'Even for judges, learning process always continues," it added. The court was considering whether the High Court could exercise its inherent powers to dismiss cases filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Supreme Court has stated that, due to the intent of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, High Courts should proceed with prudence and circumspection when addressing applications under Section 12(1). The bench further said that the interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law. First Published: May 20, 2025, 17:05 IST
