BASIT SHUJA vs RAUF KLASRA Ss — 2025 PLD 306 ISLAMABAD

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

BASIT SHUJA VS RAUF KLASRA Ss. 3, 4 & 9---Privacy as a fundamental right, discussed---Constitutional protection against intrusion into personal and financial data of a deceased---Scope---Deceased not a party to proceedings---Summoning tax documents of deceased immaterial to controversy---Summoning tax records of non-parties not in fitness of law---Ethical and legal principle against using private data of non-litigants---The right to privacy involves the protection of individuals from unwarranted intrusions into their personal lives---It safeguards an individual's personal information, communications, family life, and other aspects of their private sphere from unjustified interference by the government, organizations, or other individuals---In the present case, deceased journalist was not party in the present suit, nor his income tax returns were in question before the Trial Court in any manner, thus, summoning the income tax record of a deceased person would not be in fitness of things---No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error was found warranting interference by the High Court---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 306 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case BASIT SHUJA VS RAUF KLASRA Ss. 3, 4 & 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XVI, R. 6---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 216(1), 216 (2), 216(3) & 216(4)---Suit for recovery of damages on account of defamation instituted against the petitioner/defendant by respondent/plaintiff---Application by petitioner/defendant for summoning tax record from FBR on account of same being pleaded as a crucial part of his defense---Non-applicability of income tax record in civil defamation suit---Scope---Confidentiality of tax records under S. 216 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Admissibility of third-party tax records in civil proceedings---Brief facts of the case were that the petitioner/defendant instituted a revision petition challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge---The impugned order dismissed the petitioner's application under O. XVI, R. 6 read with S. 151, C.P.C., through which he had sought summoning of the 2019 tax record of the late journalist, Arshad Sharif, from the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) in a defamation suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff---The defamation suit pertained to a tweet posted on 05.12.2022 by the petitioner, alleging that the respondent had obtained PKR 2 million from late journalist for medical treatment of his wife but did not attend the journalist's funeral, coupled with other derogatory remarks---Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that tax records were confidential and irrelevant to the matter---The petitioner argued that the documents were necessary for cross-examination and critical to his defense---Trial Court rejected this plea, citing Section 216 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which restricted disclosure of tax data unless specific statutory exceptions were met---Against the order of Trial Court the present revision petition was instituted by respondent/ plaintiff---Held: In civil litigation the burden of proof lies upon the party asserting a claim---In view of Section 216 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requisitioning the income tax records of an individual was prohibited except where proceedings involved the Federal Government or an Income Tax Authority or certain other specified cases, but in the present case, no such circumstances existed necessitating summoning the tax records of late journalist---In terms of subsection (2) of S. 216, a bar is imposed upon the powers of the Court or other authority to require any public servant to produce before it any return, accounts, or documents contained in, or forming a part of the records relating to any proceedings under the "Ordinance" or declarations made under the Voluntary Declaration of Domestic Assets Act, 2018, the Foreign Assets (Declaration and Repatriation) Act, 2018 or the Assets Declaration Act, 2019 or any records of the Income Tax Department generally, or any part thereof, or to give evidence before it in respect thereof except in the manner provided in the "Ordinance"---Subsection (3) of S. 216 of the Ordinance, however, ordains that nothing contained in subsection (1) shall preclude the disclosure of any such particulars to a civil court in any suit or proceedings to which the Federal Government or any Income Tax Authority is a party which relates to any matter arising out of any proceedings under the "Ordinance"---Though in terms of subsection (4), it is stated that nothing in S. 216 shall apply to the production by public servant before a Court of any document, declaration, or affidavit filed or the giving of evidence by a public servant in respect thereof but said provision cannot be read in isolation to subsection (3)---Though subsection (4) is still part of the statute but no other interpretation is possible in circumstances, in wake of the decision of the High Court, reported as Mrs. Khalida Azhar v. Viqar Rustam Bakhshi and others 2009 PTD 1694 whereby, subsection (4) of S. 216 of the Ordinance was ordered to be considered for appropriate amendments---No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error was found warranting interference by the High Court---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

BASIT SHUJA vs RAUF KLASRA Ss — 2025 PLD 306 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD