'No concept of judges' permanent transfer'
The petitioners have contended that the June 20 verdict of a constitutional bench of the SC has misinterpreted the Constitution and wrongly inferred the concept of a permanent transfer from the Article 200 of the Constitution.
Article 200 of the Constitution deals with the transfer of high court judges. It outlines the process for transferring a judge from one high court to another.
According to the article, the president can transfer a judge, but only with their consent and after consultation with the chief justice of Pakistan and the chief justices of both high courts involved.
The petitioners have contended there is no provision of a permanent transfer of a superior court judge in the Constitution and only the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) is entitled to fill vacant positions in high courts and the apex court.
The petitions also argue that the president also does not have the authority to determine seniority of judges and urged the SC to revisit its order and declare it null and void.
In a majority verdict, an SC constitutional bench on June 20 upheld the transfer of three provincial high court judges to the IHC, noting that these transfers could not be declared new appointments.
However, the majority judges partially remanded the matter to the President of Pakistan to determine the seniority of the transferred judges after examining and vetting their service record "as soon as possible, including the question of whether the transfer is on a permanent or temporary basis".
Later on June 29, President Asif Ali Zardari named Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar as the senior-most judge of the IHC, following a determination of judicial seniority.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Donkey slaughtering project sparks controversy
Listen to article As a nation, we often show little regard for the rights of animals, with the mistreatment of working animals—particularly donkeys—ranking high on the list. Now, it appears that in a couple of years, donkeys, like dinosaurs, will become fictional animals from books thanks to the government's haphazard decision to initiate commercial donkey slaughtering in the absence of any breeding farms. Reportedly, the slaughterhouse in Gwadar is preparing to export donkey bones and hides to China, where they are used to produce gelatin for traditional medicine. This, however, won't stop at Gwadar since applications have already been received from other companies looking to establish slaughterhouses across the country. Animal rights activists, however, argue that with the donkey population already dangerously low and no breeding farms available, slaughtering the working animals will only exacerbate the decline in their population. Speaking to The Express Tribune, Dr Javed Gondal, CEO of Brooke Pakistan, an international organization working for the welfare of working animals, claimed that the slaughterhouse established in Gwadar will have the capacity to annually process and slaughter 216,000 donkeys, who will be transported from different parts of the country to the slaughterhouse before they are exported to China. 'High exports of donkeys may lead to their shortage in Pakistan, where the birth rate of donkeys is lower than that of other animals. Some African countries have banned the exports of donkeys after a decline in their population,' said Dr Gondal. Likewise, Altamash Saeed, an environmental and animal rights consultant, expressed his fears that in the aftermath of the project, donkeys will be transported from different parts of the country to Gwadar through inappropriate ways. 'Apart from this, donkeys are the source of livelihood for thousands of families across the country. They are being used for freight, garbage collection, agriculture, industry and mining. Hence, slaughtering donkeys will increase poverty. Moreover, slaughtering donkeys is forbidden on the grounds that Article 2A of the Constitution states that no action can be taken against the fundamental principles of Islam in Pakistan,' highlighted Saeed, who believed that slaughtering donkeys was not only against the Constitution but was also religiously inappropriate. According to the Donkey Sanctuary, a welfare organization working for the protection of donkeys, the African Union has banned the slaughtering of donkeys for skin trade on the grounds that the practice could eventually lead donkeys towards becoming an endangered species just like the rhinos and elephants. Responding to the concerns, Former Animal Husbandry Commissioner Dr Muhammad Akram, who is monitoring this project at the official level, informed that the country was home to 5.2 million donkeys, whose body parts, including the skin were used in the manufacture of cosmetics and other products. 'The main reason behind the decline in the number of donkeys is that their use has decreased. Due to this, donkey farming has never been pursued like other livestock. The company working on the donkey slaughtering project has been required to first work on donkey farming and then start slaughtering. They will be required to farm the same number of donkeys they will slaughter annually. Discussions are currently underway with five companies on donkey farming. These companies want to build slaughterhouses in different parts of the country,' said Dr Akram.
Express Tribune
12 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Trump cleared by court to implement education cuts
A person walks in front of the Department of Education building, in Washington, U.S., February 4, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/ A divided United States supreme court gave US President Donald Trump the green light on Monday to resume dismantling the Education Department. The conservative-dominated court, in an unsigned order, lifted a stay that had been placed by a federal district judge on mass layoffs at the department. The three liberal justices on the nine-member panel dissented. Trump pledged during his White House campaign to eliminate the Education Department, which was created by an act of Congress in 1979, and he moved in March to slash its workforce by nearly half. Trump instructed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to 'put herself out of a job'. Today marks a victory for education! We're one step closer to returning education to the states. — Secretary Linda McMahon (@EDSecMcMahon) July 14, 2025 Around 20 states joined teachers' unions in challenging the move in court, arguing that the Republican president was violating the principle of separation of powers by encroaching on Congress's prerogatives. In May, District Judge Myong Joun ordered the reinstatement of hundreds of fired Education Department employees. The supreme court lifted the judge's order without explanation, just days after another ruling that cleared the way for Trump to carry out mass firings of federal workers in other government departments. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said in the Education ruling that 'only Congress has the power to abolish the Department'. 'The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naïve, but either way the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave,' Sotomayor said. Traditionally, the federal government has had a limited role in education in the US, with only about 13 per cent of funding for primary and secondary schools coming from federal coffers, the rest being funded by states and local communities. But federal funding is invaluable for low-income schools and students with special needs. And the federal government has been essential in enforcing key civil rights protections for students. After returning to the White House in January, Trump directed federal agencies to prepare sweeping workforce reduction plans as part of wider efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — previously headed by Elon Musk — to downsize the government. Trump has moved to fire tens of thousands of government employees and slash programmes — targeting diversity initiatives and abolishing the Education Department, the US humanitarian aid agency USAID and others.
Business Recorder
21 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SC rules coercive tax recovery not allowed without due notice
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court held that Section 140 of the Tax Ordinance, 2001 does not permit immediate coercive recovery in the absence of a date set in the notice. 'Section 140 of the Ordinance expressly provides that the party holding money on behalf of the taxpayer must be afforded a notice with a due date to discharge its liability,' said a judgment, authored by Justice Ayesha. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Munib Akhtar and comprising Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Shahid, on Monday, delivered a judgment. Justice Shahid found reasons of Justice Ayesha meticulously articulated with clarity and precision, but to further enhance the understanding of these reasons, wrote his additional note. Amendments to orders for accuracy: Commissioner IR has powers under Sec 221(1) of IT law: SC The judgment said the section requires the Commissioner to set a date in the notice for recovery purposes, hence, the requirement of the Rule 210 C (3) of the Income Tax Recovery Rules, 2002 for immediate recovery is against the scheme of Section 140 of the Ordinance, adding 'Rule 210C is contrary to the requirements of Section 140 of the Ordinance.' The judgment further stated; 'It is settled law that rules are subordinate or delegated legislation, framed under a statute and, therefore, subservient to the statute itself and must yield where there is any inconsistency.' The Court observed that the language of Section 140 of the Ordinance does not envisage immediate or mechanical recovery rather the provision contemplates that the Commissioner will issue notice and will give a reasonable timeframe for the purpose of recovery. 'The requirement of notice before recovery is not merely statutory but reflects the broader guarantees of due process and fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution, as well as the right to dignity under Article 14.' The judgment said that the courts have consistently upheld that even in fiscal matters, recovery must be carried out in a manner that respects the individual's dignity and legal safeguards. 'Consequently, even where the law allows coercive recovery, it must be carried out in a way that preserves the dignity of the taxpayer.' The Respondent in CPLA No.3578 of 2024 is Pakistan LNG Limited whose income tax return for the year 2020 was amended in terms of order dated 15.03.2021 under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, raising a demand of Rs2,928,517,260 for recovery of tax due. On the same date, notice under Section 137(2) of the Ordinance was issued informing the taxpayer of the amount due. The Respondent challenged the amended assessment order before the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) (CIR Appeals) which appeal was decided on 09.03.2022 and subsequently uploaded on the web portal of the FBR (i.e., IRIS) at 3:28 pm. On the same date, at 4:00 pm, notice under Section 140 of the Ordinance was issued for immediate recovery in terms thereof. The Respondent in CPLA No.4598 of 2024 is Serene Air Private Limited who is a withholding agent and who statedly did not fulfill its obligations for the tax year 2020. Resultantly, proceedings in terms of Section 161 read with Section 205 of the Ordinance were decided on 31.03.2022. On the same date, notices under Section 137(2) of the Ordinance were issued raising a demand of Rs1,883,917,790 for recovery of withholding tax. The respondent filed an appeal before the CIR Appeals which was decided on 11.05.2023 at 1:56 pm. On the same date, notices under Section 140 of the Ordinance were issued to the banks for immediate recovery at 10:30 pm. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
