Dr Farogh Naseem resigned from his post as law minister in June to represent the federal government before the Supreme Court in Justice Isa's case. Photo: File
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court proposed on Tuesday that the federal government initiate tax proceedings against Justice Qazi Faez Isa's family members regarding the non-disclosure of three foreign properties.
The 10-judge full-court, which was hearing a slew of petitions challenging the reference that was sent to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) in May 2019, remarked that if there were findings against the judge the government could then approach the SJC again.
Federal counsel Dr Farogh Naseem sought a day's time from the court to respond to the bench's proposal.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial, who is leading the 10-member bench, noted that there were several legal defects in the reference. The government's prime concern is to know the source of funds to acquire said properties, which is only possible through the proper mechanism i.e tax proceedings, he observed.
"You have not issued tax notice under Sections 116 or 114 [of the Income Tax law]," remarked Justice Bandial. He further said that Justice Isa never refused to disclose the source of funds but wanted proper mechanism. If the court held that there was malice behind the initial reference then the government has no basis to proceed in this manner, he added.
Justice Bandial also warned that if the government did not follow the procedure, the court would be finding malice. Maybe not all of us but bench members will give finding on malice, said Justice Bandial.
A member of the full court, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, also noted that there was no harm in initiating tax proceedings in this matter, and then the SJC may be approached against the SC judge by the government.
"We don't want a bad name for the apex court but that fair opportunity be given to the SC judge," said Justice Shah.
Let due process be followed, and then whatever the outcome, proceed in accordance with law, remarked Justice Maqbool Baqar, another member of the bench.
Dr Naseem sought time to discuss the bench's proposal with his clien, the federal government, and continued with his arguments in the case.
As the hearing drew to a close, the federal counsel asked how much time would be given to the tax authorities to complete proceedings in the matter.
Justice Bandial said that they would have time till the end of the court's summer break. Maximum two months, he said. However, Justice Baqar also noted that there was a history of how tax machinery is being exploited.
The federal counsel sought one-day's time to respond to the bench's proposal.
Initial reference
The challenged reference, sent to the SJC in 2019, sought Justice Isa’s removal alleging that he committed misconduct when he failed to mention his family members' properties in the United Kingdom in his wealth statement.
The SJC – the only constitutional forum that can hold a superior court judge accountable – had later started proceedings on the basis of the government's reference and issued show-cause notices to Justice Isa, who is in line to become the chief justice of Pakistan.
Justice Isa and a number of other petitioners later challenged the reference and the SJC proceedings in the apex court. In his petition Justice Isa had accused the PTI-led federal government of spying on him and his family to discover their foreign properties.
At an earlier hearing of the case, on June 4, Justice Baqar asked the government to bear in mind the consequences in case it was unable to prove its case against Justice Isa.
The same judge on June 12 reminded the government’s counsel that a democratically elected PPP government had been sent packing in 1996 on charges of judges’ surveillance.
At the hearing yesterday (Monday), the federal counsel has stated before the apex court that the president, prime minister and law minister were ready to face consequences if the presidential reference filed against Justice Isa is quashed.
As the case proceeds, speculations are rife within political and legal circles over the implications of the case and its possible judgement.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ