Latest news with #AyeshaMalik
Express Tribune
14-07-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
Supreme Court stresses taxpayer dignity in recovery process
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) must preserve the dignity of taxpayers while undertaking tax recovery measures. A nine-page judgment authored by Justice Ayesha Malik, dismissing FBR's petition against a high court order, noted that a notice that seeks recovery on the same date as its issuance would defeat the very objective of setting out a date and would render the legal safeguard meaningless. "Yet another aspect that is of significance is the constitutional underpinning of Section 140 of the Ordinance." The ruling observed that 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. 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 judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench of the apex court, led by Justice Munib Akhtar, which examined two core questions: whether an FBR commissioner can demand immediate payment on the same day a notice is issued under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, or whether the ordinance requires a future date for compliance. FBR's position was that immediate recovery is permissible under Section 140, with no obligation to issue a subsequent notice or provide a specific payment date. However, the judgment held that Section 140 does not permit immediate coercive recovery in the absence of a due date. When interpreted in context, the provision requires that any party holding money on behalf of the taxpayer be issued a notice that clearly specifies a deadline for discharging liability. In his additional note, Justice Shahid Waheed said that a substantial question before the bench was the intersection of tax law and the rights of taxpayers. "In a legal framework that espouses fundamental rightssuch as the right to a fair trial, access to justice, right to dignity, and due process," he noted. He posed a critical question: whether there is any justifiable reason to uphold a culture of authoritative dominance in tax collection? "This inquiry challenges existing norms that often prioritise tax recovery above the rights and protections guaranteed to taxpayers, potentially undermining the very essence of justice. It also invites a thorough examination of the delicate balance that must be upheld between the efficient recovery of tax debts, as mandated by law, and the imperative to protect the rights of those being taxed." Justice Waheed further reflected on the spirit of Sections 137, 138 and 140, likening the ideal recovery process to that of a honeybee: "When delving into the provisions of Sections 137, 138, and 140, it becomes evident that the law prescribes a recovery process that, much like a honey bee gathering nectar from flowers without causing pain to the plant, mandates that taxation officers conduct tax collection and recovery in a manner that ensures: (a) the treatment of taxpayer with dignity and respect, (b) strict adherence to established legal protocols and procedures, and (c) the provision of transparent guidance and explanations to taxpayers." Outlining the procedural journey, he noted: "How is it so? This becomes clearer when we break down the stages involved in the imposition of tax, which consist of three phases. The first phase involves the declaration of tax liability, stating the taxpayer's financial obligations." Subsequently, the second phase encompasses the assessment process, detailing the exact sum that the taxpayer is legally obligated to pay. "Finally, if the taxpayer fails to fulfil this obligation voluntarily, the third phase introduces the recovery methods to be employed." Underscoring the primacy of dignity, he stressed: "The right to dignity is the most central of all fundamental rights, as it is the source from which all other rights are derived. The Ordinance aims to strike a balance between ensuring tax recovery and upholding taxpayer dignity. The recovery process executed in these cases disregarded this balance."
Express Tribune
14-07-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
SC stresses taxpayer dignity in recovery process
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) must preserve the dignity of taxpayers while undertaking tax recovery measures. A nine-page judgment authored by Justice Ayesha Malik, dismissing FBR's petition against a high court order, noted that a notice that seeks recovery on the same date as its issuance would defeat the very objective of setting out a date and would render the legal safeguard meaningless. 'Yet another aspect that is of significance is the constitutional underpinning of Section 140 of the Ordinance.' The ruling observed that 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. 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 judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench of the apex court, led by Justice Munib Akhtar, which examined two core questions: whether an FBR commissioner can demand immediate payment on the same day a notice is issued under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, or whether the ordinance requires a future date for compliance. FBR's position was that immediate recovery is permissible under Section 140, with no obligation to issue a subsequent notice or provide a specific payment date. However, the judgment held that Section 140 does not permit immediate coercive recovery in the absence of a due date. When interpreted in context, the provision requires that any party holding money on behalf of the taxpayer be issued a notice that clearly specifies a deadline for discharging liability. In his additional note, Justice Shahid Waheed said that a substantial question before the bench was the intersection of tax law and the rights of taxpayers. "In a legal framework that espouses fundamental rights—such as the right to a fair trial, access to justice, right to dignity, and due process," he noted. He posed a critical question: whether there is any justifiable reason to uphold a culture of authoritative dominance in tax collection? "This inquiry challenges existing norms that often prioritise tax recovery above the rights and protections guaranteed to taxpayers, potentially undermining the very essence of justice. It also invites a thorough examination of the delicate balance that must be upheld between the efficient recovery of tax debts, as mandated by law, and the imperative to protect the rights of those being taxed." Justice Waheed further reflected on the spirit of Sections 137, 138 and 140, likening the ideal recovery process to that of a honeybee: "When delving into the provisions of Sections 137, 138, and 140, it becomes evident that the law prescribes a recovery process that, much like a honey bee gathering nectar from flowers without causing pain to the plant, mandates that taxation officers conduct tax collection and recovery in a manner that ensures: (a) the treatment of taxpayer with dignity and respect, (b) strict adherence to established legal protocols and procedures, and (c) the provision of transparent guidance and explanations to taxpayers." Outlining the procedural journey, he noted: "How is it so? This becomes clearer when we break down the stages involved in the imposition of tax, which consist of three phases. The first phase involves the declaration of tax liability, stating the taxpayer's financial obligations.' Subsequently, the second phase encompasses the assessment process, detailing the exact sum that the taxpayer is legally obligated to pay. 'Finally, if the taxpayer fails to fulfil this obligation voluntarily, the third phase introduces the recovery methods to be employed.' Underscoring the primacy of dignity, he stressed: "The right to dignity is the most central of all fundamental rights, as it is the source from which all other rights are derived. The Ordinance aims to strike a balance between ensuring tax recovery and upholding taxpayer dignity. The recovery process executed in these cases disregarded this balance." Justice Waheed further observed: "The failure to verify whether the 'amount payable' had been classified as 'tax due' before declaring the taxpayer (respondent) as a defaulter – and subsequently issuing a direct payment notice to the person holding money on behalf of the taxpayer (respondent) – amounted to discrediting the taxpayer (respondent) within its community and negatively affecting its business reputation." He cautioned against oppressive collection practices. "No legal standards can justify culture of authoritative dominance in tax recovery, as it fundamentally undermines the core principles of justice. This creates an imbalance between the need for efficient tax recovery and the protection of taxpayer's rights."
Business Recorder
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Ruling coalition given two-thirds majority as ECP notifies reserved seats
In a significant realignment of parliamentary power, the ruling coalition, largely comprising the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), secured a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly on Wednesday after the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) redistributed reserved seats following a Supreme Court verdict. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court overturned an earlier July 2024 ruling that had granted reserved seats to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), stripping the party of its eligibility to hold them. As a result, PTI ceased to be recognised as a parliamentary party. Reserved seats: ECP says majority judgement premised on 'erroneous conclusion' Responding to the court's majority decision, passed by a seven-judge bench, the ECP withdrew its previous notifications from July 2024 that had marked PTI-backed candidates as returned members of the National Assembly and various provincial legislatures. It then issued new notifications reallocating reserved seats among the PML-N, PPP, and JUI-F. National Assembly composition recast With the allocation of 13 additional reserved seats to the PML-N, 4 to the PPP, the ruling coalition now holds 235 seats in the 336-member house, well above the 224 required for a two-thirds majority. The opposition commands 98 seats, with JUI-F getting two seats, while one seat remains suspended,d and two reserved seats are currently vacant. Provincial shifts The ECP also reallocated reserved seats in the provincial assemblies: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly: 10 seats to JUI-F, 7 to PML-N, 6 to PPP, and 1 each to PTI-Parliamentarians and Awami National Party (ANP). Punjab Assembly: 23 to PML-N, 2 to PPP, and 1 each to PML-Q and Istehkam-i-Pakistan Party (IPP). Sindh Assembly: 2 reserved seats to PPP and 1 to MQM-P. PHC bars elected MPAs on reserved seats from taking oath Legal background The case stemmed from a March 2024 ruling by the Peshawar High Court, which barred the Sunni Ittehad Council, joined by PTI-backed independents after the February 8 elections, from claiming reserved seats. While Justices Ayesha Malik and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi initially rejected review petitions filed by the PML-N, PPP, and ECP, they were later removed from the Constitutional Bench. Meanwhile, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail dissented, maintaining PTI's claim to 39 seats and urging reallocation to include the party. A previous majority judgment had required independent candidates to clarify their political affiliations through notarised statements, leading to provisional recognition of some as PTI members. However, in the final review, Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi revised their earlier positions and supported the review petitions. They directed the ECP to re-examine the nomination papers and affiliation declarations of all 80 returned candidates and issue decisions on the eligibility of reserved seats within 15 days. The reallocation of these seats has reshaped legislative dynamics at the federal and provincial levels, marking a dramatic shift in parliamentary representation just months after the general elections.
ABC News
14-05-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Water tensions build between India and Pakistan as Indus treaty suspended
India has suspended a water-sharing treaty with Pakistan and fast-tracked the construction of four new hydropower projects on rivers flowing into its neighbour, alarming international legal experts and provoking a sharp response from Islamabad. India's decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty came less than 24 hours after a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir last month. Citing security concerns, New Delhi halted its participation in the treaty — prompting Pakistan to condemn the move as "an act of war". "This is the first time it has been suspended in its history," said Ayesha Malik, deputy director at the Lahore-based Research Society of International Law. The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 and brokered by the World Bank after India cut off water supplies to Pakistan in the wake of the partition of India, is considered a cornerstone of trans-boundary water diplomacy. It governs rivers that sustain around 300 million people, irrigates vast farmland in Pakistan, and supplies hydropower infrastructure in Indian-administered Kashmir. Ms Malik warned that this was far more than a diplomatic tit-for-tat. Delhi-based political analyst Anuttama Banerji emphasised that the treaty was originally designed to keep water issues separate from political or military tensions. The first major rupture came in 2016 after a terrorist attack on Indian soldiers in Uri. "That's when the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] first put the idea on the table that the treaty should be scrapped," Ms Malik told the ABC. "Blood and water cannot flow together," India Prime Minister Narendra Modi famously declared following the 2016 attack and repeated it in an address to the nation after the recent attack. The treaty allocates three eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas and Sutlej — to India, and three western ones — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — to Pakistan. The treaty has withstood several wars, but tensions have been steadily rising. In 2017, India completed the Kishanganga dam in Kashmir and moved ahead with the Ratle hydro-electric project on the Chenab River — despite Pakistan's objections to the dam designs and a pending dispute with the World Bank over whether there were violations to the treaty. In January 2023, India escalated matters further by formally requesting a modification of the treaty, citing population growth, climate change and energy needs, before last month's suspension. "Any modification requires mutual consent — and India has sidestepped that entirely with its suspension." Medha Bisht, a senior assistant professor in the Department of International Relations at the South Asian University, said India's pause may be a calculated form of leverage. "Every country looks at what options it has [during such conflicts]. This seemed like a legally safe option," Ms Bisht told the ABC. "India wasn't terminating the treaty — because it can't — but it was putting it into abeyance." She said that India believed Pakistan had not been acting in good faith over the years. "Pakistan treated nearly every Indian project which was designed on the western rivers as an opportunity to internationalise the dispute." As a result, "India grew increasingly frustrated that most of these projects, which it believes were within its rights, kept getting stalled." Experts warn India is now using water for political purposes. "Today the issue of Kashmir for India, in my opinion, is more related to the water issue as opposed to the issue of identity alone," Ms Banerji told the ABC. Under the treaty, India is allowed to build hydro-electric projects as long as water continues to flow freely into Pakistan. The four dam projects India is currently constructing are all on the Chenab River (whose waters are mainly meant for Pakistan) in India-administered Kashmir. "There's never been a restriction on building hydro-electric power projects," said Uzair Sattar, a former research associate with the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center. But he cautioned that violations arise when India changes the infrastructure around dams to enable more storage. Such infrastructure, he explained, could also allow India to "divert water to other tributaries" and control when and how much water reached Pakistan — especially during crucial winter months for crop cycles. Ms Malik said suspending the treaty also gave India greater control, allowing it to stop sharing water flow data and flush dam sediment at will. Previously, such flushing, which results in a significant release of water downstream, was only permitted during peak monsoon season to avoid disrupting Pakistan's irrigation. She argues the dams could become strategic assets in future conflicts if built without Pakistani input. Legal experts say Pakistan still has legal avenues under the treaty. It can appeal to the World Bank, request arbitration, or seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. But each option is slow and politically sensitive. Previous disputes over projects like the Kishanganga dam were settled by international panels that allowed construction but imposed minimum flow requirements. Now, with the treaty suspended, even those safeguards may be void. "India is planning a whole caravan of hydropower projects," Ms Malik said. "Without the treaty's dispute resolution mechanisms, nothing is stopping them from altering flows in ways that could severely harm Pakistan," she warned. Pakistan's dependence on the Indus is profound. Mr Sattar from the Stimson Center said he was concerned about the precedent being set. "This is a conflict over terrorism between two nuclear powers, with water as a secondary source of leverage — which is very worrying. "But if the world accepts that a country can unilaterally suspend a water-sharing treaty, it could open the door for future conflicts where water is the primary issue, especially under climate stress." Despite rising tensions, some experts see potential for water to act as a peace-building tool. "There's a concept called issue linkage," said Ms Malik. "You tie water cooperation to climate finance or energy deals like the Iran-Pakistan pipeline." But trust, she added, was running dry. Ms Bisht warned that while governments debate, the fallout hits people — and ecosystems. "The treaty saw water as just H2O. But it's biodiversity, wetlands, sediments," she said. "It's not just food security — it's nutrition. "India may want reform, but execution is everything."
Express Tribune
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Judges object to bench in reserved seats case
Supreme Court Justices Ayesha Malik and Aqeel Abbasi have expressed reservations regarding the constitution of the bench that heard review pleas challenging the top court's ruling, which declared the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) eligible for reserved seats. In their dissenting note, the judges pointed out that the original case was heard by a 13-member bench, five members of which, including the author, were available but excluded from the bench constituted to hear the review petitions. This, they observed, was important to note, notwithstanding that none of the parties before them raised any objection to the bench's constitution. They observed that this exclusion stemmed from Article 191A of the Constitution, inserted through the 26th Amendment, which requires the formation of constitutional benches comprising judges nominated and determined by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). "The judges who have been excluded were not nominated for the constitutional bench by the JCP to hear the review petitions," they further noted. "In this context, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment also amended Article 175A of the Constitution by reconfiguring the Members of the JCP such that it includes amongst others two members from the Senate and two members from the National Assembly of whom two shall be from the Treasury Benches, one from each House, and two from the Opposition Benches, one from each House." They stated that the effective majority in the JCP for appointing judges to constitutional benches now rests with the government and political parties. "The members of the JCP, particularly those representing the government and political parties, are bound by a constitutional duty to ensure that their nominations are fair, transparent and impartial. As the JCP is established under the Constitution, it must uphold and safeguard the basic principles and values of the Constitution which include the independence of the judiciary." Pointing out that the JCP functions within a constitutional scheme predicated upon the rule of law, separation of powers, and supremacy of the constitution, the dissenting order emphasised that it was therefore incumbent upon members of the JCP to discharge their functions with integrity and in a manner that exemplifies constitutional propriety, ensuring that the independence and integrity of the judiciary is always protected and maintained. "Any departure from its constitutional duty will weaken not only the judiciary but public trust and confidence, which is fundamental to a constitutional democracy," they cautioned. They further noted that this constitutional duty also extends to the committee formed under Article 191A(4), which is tasked with determining the composition of constitutional benches from among those judges nominated by the JCP. It was incumbent upon the committee, they wrote, to ensure that the review petitions were heard by a bench that included all available members of the majority's opinion, including its author judge. "In our opinion, the Committee should have requisitioned the JCP for nominations of these judges for the purposes of the review petitions because the function of this Committee is not merely procedural or ministerial, rather it carries substantive constitutional weight. The legitimacy of a bench lies not only in the process of nomination, but equally in the manner of its constitution. It must therefore act with the same degree of fairness, impartiality and fidelity to constitutional values as is expected of the JCP itself." "When the constitution of a bench gives rise to doubts about fairness, the legitimacy of the entire process is called into question. In our opinion, the current composition of the Bench reflects the will of the majority of the JCP which comprises of members from the Government PML(N) and the PPPP who are Review Petitioners before us," the dissenting order added. The judges warned that this raised serious concerns about fairness, impartiality, and transparency, adding that propriety demanded the inclusion of the five judges who had constituted the majority in the original verdict. They also observed that in the Supreme Court's order dated May 6, 2025, it was stated that at the time of final determination by the remaining members of the bench, the dismissal of the review petitions by the two dissenting members would be counted. "Respectfully, we do not agree with this observation." "In view of the aforesaid, we find no ground has been made out for issuance of notice, hence, these Review Petitions are dismissed. CMA No.7458 of 2024 seeking permission to argue the case, being not maintainable, also stands dismissed." The dissenting opinion was part of the reserved seats review case, in which the judges disagreed with both the maintainability and the outcome of the review petitions filed by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). The dissent further defended the scope of the original judgment, stating that it dealt with a broader issue concerning the protection of voters' rights. "The judgment addressed a wider question of protecting the rights of voters," the note read. Justice Malik and Justice Abbasi also raised objections to the short order issued on May 6, which stated that their dissenting views would be considered in the final ruling. "With utmost respect, we disagree with this observation," the dissenting note reads. The judges rejected the review petitions on reserved seats, making it clear that they did not support revisiting the original judgment. The dissenting opinion added that the review petitions failed to identify any error in the original ruling. It noted that the PML-N and PPP had only challenged the court's short order and did not seek a review of the detailed judgment, which was issued over seven months ago. Both parties, the judges observed, had not contested the detailed verdict. The note further mentioned that the Election Commission of Pakistan had objected to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf not being a party in the original case, a matter that, according to the dissenting judges, had already been addressed in the detailed verdict. Non-publication of dissenting note In a related development, Justice Ayesha Malik also wrote a letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, raising serious concerns over the non-publication of her dissenting note on the apex court's official website in the reserved seats review case. According to the letter, Justice Malik had sent her dissenting note to the SC's IT department at 3:11 pm on the previous day, with instructions to upload it. However, despite a follow-up direction issued again on the morning of the following day, the IT department failed to comply. Justice Ayesha termed the IT department's non-compliance with instructions as "unacceptable". She urged the chief justice to immediately ensure that the copy of the judgment, including her dissenting note, be uploaded to the SC's website without further delay. "A copy of this letter is being sent to all the Honble Judges of the Court along with a copy of the Order by Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and myself to bring to their attention this dereliction of duty on the part the I.T Department, on a matter that should and is ordinarily attended to in a routine manner but in the case of this Order, has become a matter of unexplained difficulties," the letter stated.
