ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Saturday ruled that Sarina Isa cannot be denied a constitutional right just because she is the wife of a judge of a superior judiciary.
The apex court ruled that no one, including a judge of the Supreme Court of the country, is above the law, but at the same time, no one, including a judge of the Supreme Court of the country, can be deprived of his right. behaved according to the law.
On April 26 last year, a ten-member larger bench headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandiyal allowed review petitions filed by Justice Kazi Faiz Isa and various bar associations against its order dated June 19, 2020.
The apex court had accepted the review petitions by a majority of 6-4. Justice Maqbool Bakar, Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miyankhel admitted the petitions. However, Justice Isa's review petition was accepted by five judges and dismissed by five judges. Similarly, Yahya Afridi upheld his decision, dismissing Justice Kazi Faiz's petition as not maintainable on June 19, 2020, but allowing review petitions, announcing the directions contained in the court last year had no legal effect.
The court quashed the President's reference against Justice Isa on June 19, 2020, but seven of the 10 judges on the bench asked the Inland Revenue Department and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to seek clarification from the judge's wife, Sarina Isa, and children. ordered. Funds for three properties in his name in the United Kingdom and submit a report to the Secretary of the Supreme Judicial Council.
Whereas three judges including Justice Maqbool Bakir, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Yahya Afridi gave their order and allowed it.
Justice Yahya Afridi, in her separate note, observed that in the case of Mrs. Sarina Faiz Isa, the tax authorities had submitted the tax return of Dr. Mrs. Sarina Faiz Isa, the Federal Law Minister, by ARU President Barrister Shahzad Akbar.
The detailed judgment said he was not informed of the course of action the court was contemplating, nor was he given an opportunity to state his stand on it.
It is further observed that the petitioner cannot be punished and deprived of her constitutional right as per law as she is the wife of a judge and action against her would establish the objectivity of the court.
The detailed judgment said, "The directions imposed compelled him to do what he could not do under the law, i.e. ITO".
In the present case, the detailed judgment noted that though this Court had given directions in good faith to ensure the accountability of the Judge of a Constitutional Court and to uphold public confidence in the impartiality of the Court, but as these directions were given. The court, without giving notice to the parties, without telling them what the court was contemplating to do, and without inviting and hearing their arguments on the matters disposed of therein.
It was observed that as per the Constitution, a government official cannot file a complaint against the judges of the higher judiciary.
"I feel constrained to see that the said offenders have been allowed to continue in such important positions of authority by a deserving Prime Minister, and that too when this Court has unanimously upheld their functions in the Constitution and the law, particularly Section 216 of the Ordinance, giving penal consequences, defies the most elementary principles of "good governance", and exposes the involvement of a qualified Prime Minister in the commission of the said contraventions", Justice Afridi said.
Thus, the judge observed that it is important to ensure that there is no artificial impediment in ensuring accountability of judges, provided that the accountability as per law is followed.
Justice Yahya Afridi further held that the tax officers are competent to proceed without any fear or favor against the petitioner Judge or any other judge of the senior judiciary, serving or retired, her husband or/and children in respect of her tax matters. in accordance with; Not on the basis of provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and otherwise unlawful directions.
He further said that Section 216 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, mandates confidentiality of information of a tax filer, and violation of this exposes the offender to penal consequences under Sections 198 and 199 of the Ordinance.