JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA vs The PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN arts — 2021 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA VS The PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN arts. 14(1), 90, 91, 184(3) & 209(5)(b)---Rules of Business, 1973, R. 20(6)---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 116(1)(b), 198 & 216---National Database and Registration authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000), Ss. 28 & 29---Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964, R. 18---Presidential reference against a judge of the Supreme Court ('the petitioner') pending before the Supreme Judicial Council ('the Council') in relation to properties bought by his spouse and children in a foreign country that were not declared in the petitioner's tax returns---Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner-judge before the Supreme Court calling into question the constitutionality and legality of the reference against him---Held, that the purported reference was based on actual malice and ill-will harboured against the petitioner-judge by the concerned State functionaries on account of a judgment the petitioner-judge had authored in the past [Suo Motu Case No. 7 of 2017 (PLD 2019 SC 318)], wherein he had criticized the ruling political party and one of its coalition partners---Purported reference did not allege any dishonesty or corruption in the acquisition of the foreign properties and it was also not alleged that the petitioner did not have sufficient tax paid/white money to acquire the said properties, if he wanted to---Nothing was placed on the record to show that there had been any money laundering or that the petitioner failed to pay any tax due---Joint reading of Ss.114 & 116 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 ('the 2001 Ordinance') showed that the petitioner was not at all required to declare the assets of his non-dependent wife, and children, nor was there any other provision in the 2001 Ordinance creating any such obligation on the petitioner requiring him to disclose the assets of his non-dependent wife and children along with his income returns---Prime Minister bypassed the Cabinet altogether and sent his purported advice to the President for forwarding the purported reference to the Council, without the sanction of the Cabinet---President had not applied his independent mind while forwarding to the Council the purported reference---assets Recovery Unit (aRU) and its Chairman were bereft of any legal status and had absolutely no power or authority to collect the material in connection with the purported reference---Information about the petitioner and his family available with the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and National Database and Registration authority (NaDRa) was freely accessed, obtained and shared by/with the aRU and the media in violation of the respective statutory provisions relating to confidentiality and statutory prohibition on sharing such information---Complainant-journalist who informed the Chairman aRU of the foreign properties belonging to the petitioner's family was merely a proxy who was set up by the Government itself---Whole account of "complaint" followed by an "investigation" was to cover up the fact that the information about the foreign properties was, in fact, obtained by government agencies through covert surveillance---Petitioner's image was systematically damaged through selected leaks and press conferences by members of the Cabinet in relation to the reference---all illegal acts leading upto the filing of the reference were collusive involving at the very least the President, Prime Minister, Law Minister, Chairman assets Recovery Unit (aRU) and the attorney General---Malice could be inferred from their deeds and actions and the surrounding context---Law Minister, the Chairman aRU and officials of Federal Investigation agency (FIa) were additionally liable under the relevant provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the 2001 Ordinance') and the National Database and Registration authority Ordinance, 2000 (NaDRa Ordinance) for illegally obtaining/disclosing personal and confidential information of the petitioner and his family---Prime Minister himself was also liable under the 2001 Ordinance and NaDRa Ordinance as it was on his orders and that of his team that the illegalities in relation to the reference were committed---Prime Minister was also liable for sending the purported advice to the President, which in the facts and circumstances of the case was infected with malice---Whereas, the then, Special assistant to the Prime Minister on Information was liable for committing contempt of Court for the uncalled for and disrespectful comments she made in her press conference relating to the reference---Purported reference against the petitioner was quashed and the proceedings and the show cause notice in relation thereto stood abated---Illegalities and violations of the Constitution and relevant laws committed from the stage of pre-reference investigation/ proceedings to the filing of the Presidential reference before the Supreme Judicial Council stated in detail.

JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA vs The PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN arts — 2021 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PLD