No preconditions to right to appeal
A constitutional bench of the Supreme Court has disapproved attaching any condition with the right of appeal and declared it a violation of fundamental rights.
"Unreasonable conditions attached to an appeal would likely be one that is not justified, disproportionate or infringed upon the fundamental rights or the legal process. An unreasonable condition could make it impossible or unfairly difficult to exercise the right to appeal," reads a five-page judgement authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.
He was hearing an appeal filed by Senior Joint Director Foreign Exchange Operations Division against Lahore High Court which had declared that section 23C (4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (FERA) and rule 8 of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules,1998 are unconstitutional.
A five-judge bench of the constitutional bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the matter.
"Similarly, conditions that obstruct the normal and fair functioning of the due process for an appellant, such as, the payment of excessive amount could be considered as unreasonable," the judgment adds. "There is no justification for deposition of such an excessive amount nor has it been shown that the condition attached to the appeal is with due regard to the public requirement."
Under section 23C of the FERA, a decision of the Adjudicating Officer, made under section 23B(4) is though appealable before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (Appellate Board), but it shall not be admitted for hearing unless the appellant deposits in cash with the Appellate Board the amount of penalty or, at the discretion of the Appellate Board, furnishes security equal in value to such amount of penalty, as provided by its subsection (4).
The main controversy for determination is whether the pre-condition of deposition of the amount of penalty for admission of an appeal as provided by section 23C(4) of the FERA and rule 8 of the Rules, is constitutional.
The judgement notes that there is always a possibility of error, mistake of facts or law in a decision at the level of initial forum, therefore, the right of appeal is a substantive right of an aggrieved person.
"It existed since the establishment of judiciary, with its primary function to protect against miscarriage of justice. A right of access to justice and a right to a fair trial and due process is a fundamental right of a citizen, guaranteed by Article 10A of the constitution, which includes an appeal to a higher, independent and impartial forum to scrutinize the decision of the fora below.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
IHC orders abolition of CDA
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Saturday ordered the federal government to dissolve the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and transfer all its powers and assets to the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (MCI). In a detailed verdict, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani ruled that the CDA has no legal authority to impose taxes. The court further declared that any amount collected by the Authority from individuals or institutions under the guise of "Right of Way" or direct access charges must be refunded. The federal government was instructed to initiate and complete the process of dissolving the CDA and transfer all its powers and assets to the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (MCI). The judgment emphasised that the rights of Islamabad's citizens must be protected under the law. The ruling was issued in response to a petition filed by Taj Residencia Housing Society and its residents. The court also declared SRO dated June 9, 2015 — regarding CDA's right-of-way and access charges — null and void, along with all actions taken under it, labeling them as illegal. Any funds collected under this SRO must be returned. Justice Kayani noted that the CDA Ordinance was originally enacted to establish the federal capital and oversee its development, but due to evolving governance structures and new laws, its practical relevance has ended. The original objectives of the CDA have been fulfilled, and it is now appropriate for the government to formally dissolve the authority. The court also directed that following the transfer of powers, the Islamabad administration must operate in a transparent and accountable manner. The judgment reaffirmed that Islamabad's entire administrative, regulatory, and municipal framework is governed by the Local Government Act, which mandates that no tax could be imposed without the approval of the elected local government. Therefore, CDA lacks any legal authority to levy taxes. It is worth noting that CDA had imposed right-of-access charges on petrol pumps and CNG stations, and direct access taxes on private housing societies for connecting to main roads. These charges were challenged in the IHC, resulting in this significant decision. Rains prompt monsoon action On the other hand, the CDA has finalised a special action plan for the monsoon season and issued a notification outlining the responsibilities of all relevant departments to ensure effective implementation. On the instructions of CDA Chairman, Member Administration Talat Mehmood has been assigned to oversee the plan. According to the notification, special teams will be deployed following a survey of illegal basements and low-lying areas. Flood relief camps and other safety measures will be established to handle any emergency situations. A Flood Relief Cell will remain operational from July 1 to September 30, headed by the Director of Emergency and Disaster Management. A dedicated helpline will also be set up, and assistance will be available via rescue and fire brigade services. Heads of relevant departments will appoint focal persons at the relief camps. The sanitation department will operate under the authority of the relief camps. A special operation will be launched against makeshift houses and illegal constructions.
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Election Commission faces troll post-reserved seats verdict
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Saturday rejected what it called "baseless propaganda" being circulated in certain media circles following the Supreme Court's constitutional bench's decision on reserved seats. The criticism arose after the Supreme Court's constitutional bench dismissed the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-turned Sunni Ittehad Council's (SIC) review petition regarding the allocation of reserved seats. The decision allowed the ruling coalition, led by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), to emerge as the single largest party and to consolidate a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly. Amid shifting political dynamics, the ECP reiterated its constitutional role and defended the legality of its decisions, saying the claims were contrary to facts and intended to mislead the public. In a statement, a spokesperson for the ECP said that some circles in the media were engaged in baseless propaganda against the Commission following the recent decision of the top court. The spokesperson said that the Commission declares this propaganda to be contrary to facts and based on falsehoods. The statement said that such elements were unjustifiably targeting the commission with criticism. It added that historical facts and numerous decisions of the superior judiciary provide irrefutable evidence that the Commission has always performed its duties in light of the Constitution and law. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the position of the Election Commission," it read. For example, in the Senate elections, the spokesperson said, the commission's stance regarding secret ballot and show of hands procedures, which was fully in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, was upheld by a Supreme Court bench headed by the then ex-CJP Justice Gulzar Ahmed. In the case of the disqualification election in Daska, the official added, the Commission's decision was not only declared valid by the Supreme Court bench, led by then Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial but also recognized as a constitutional action. The Supreme Court bench headed by then Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa had also endorsed the legal interpretation of the Commission concerning PTI's intra-party elections, the statement maintained. Furthermore, it said, in the case of the delisting of the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), when the Commission delisted APML for failing to conduct intra-party elections, and this decision was challenged by APML in the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the Commission's decision. Following this, the spokesperson said, the Commission delisted several other parties that failed to comply with the law, keeping the Supreme Court's decision in mind. The Supreme Court also accepted the Commission's appeal regarding Punjab Election Tribunals, rejecting the Lahore High Court's decision and upholding the Commission's stance. Similarly, it was maintained, in the recent case concerning reserved seats of the Sunni Ittehad Council, first the Peshawar High Court and now the SC constitutional bench have upheld the Commission's position as constitutional and legal.
Express Tribune
12 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Birthright citizenship challenge still looms for Trump
Olga Urbina and her 9-month-old son Ares Webster participate in a protest outside the US Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship as the court hears arguments over the order in Washington on May 15, 2025. PHOTO:AFP Listen to article The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A host of policies That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. States challenge directive The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as US citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
