Tag: Unconstitutional

  • Islamabad High Court deems super-tax on high-income businesses unconstitutional

    Islamabad High Court deems super-tax on high-income businesses unconstitutional

    The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has invalidated the imposition of a super-tax on high-income businesses, ruling it as unconstitutional. Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan delivered the verdict on Thursday after a reserved decision. The court declared all notices of demand and recovery associated with the controversial tax null and void, providing relief to the affected businesses.

    Furthermore, the court struck down Section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, effectively negating the legal basis for the super-tax. The petitioners, who challenged the validity of this tax, were represented by prominent legal counsel, including Salman Akram Raja and Adnan Haider Randhawa, among others. They argued that the imposition of such a tax was unjust and detrimental to the growth of high-income businesses.

    The origin of this tax can be traced back to the budget speech of Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, wherein he announced the implementation of the super tax last month. Initially, the tax was proposed to be levied on individuals earning Rs500 million annually or more, but the conditions were later relaxed from the original proposal, which targeted those earning Rs300 million per annum.

    It is worth noting that the Supreme Court had previously approved the imposition of the super-tax, setting it at 4 per cent for all industries in February. The government had initially imposed a 10 per cent rate for some industries and 4 per cent for others.

    While the Lahore High Court also approved the tax, it added a caveat that the rules did not allow a tax rate higher than 4 per cent. However, the recent ruling by the Islamabad High Court has effectively struck down the super-tax altogether, providing significant relief to high-income businesses affected by the proposed tax.

  • Explainer: Law says dismissing no-confidence motion is a big no-no

    Explainer: Law says dismissing no-confidence motion is a big no-no

    Pakistan is in a state of political chaos as the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan was dismissed abruptly on Sunday. The move came after National Assembly (NA) Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri termed it “unconstitutional”, saying that it was backed by “foreign powers”.

    Suri then quickly disallowed voting on the no-confidence motion and adjourned the session. Later, on PM Khan’s advice, President Arif Alvi dissolved the National Assembly, with the premier asking the nation to get ready for fresh polls.

    After the nation was left in shock, there was much talk about the “unconstitutional trump card” used by PM Khan.What everyone wants to know is: did Khan subvert the constitution of Pakistan?

    Lawyer Salaar Khan tweeted a brief comprehension of the constitutional premise of what happened on Sunday, April 3, which went viral on Twitter.

    “Instead of allowing the vote to proceed against the Prime Minister, the Deputy Speaker dismissed the resolution. After this, the President was able to dissolve the National Assembly on the PM’s advice,” tweeted Salaar.

    “Under Article 58 of the Constitution, the President may dissolve the National Assembly on the PM’s advice. However, a PM against whom a vote of no confidence ‘has not been voted upon’ cannot ask the President to dissolve the house,” wrote Salaar.

    “To get around this, the Deputy Speaker first ‘dismissed’ the no-confidence resolution submitted against the PM. He did this on the basis of a personal interpretation of Article 5, which provides for loyalty to the state.”

    “The rather feeble argument here was that because the letter that Pakistan had received from the US suggested a regime change would improve relations, the vote of the no-confidence motion, itself, was against anti-state,” said the lawyer.

    “The irony, of course, is that Article 5 also provides for obedience to the Constitution – which was arguably violated in the process of the dismissal of the no-confidence motion.”

    “Procedurally, a ‘motion’ for no-confidence is first moved and, if leave is granted, it becomes a ‘resolution’. Under the Rules of Business in the National Assembly, there is no provision that actually allows a Speaker or Deputy Speaker to dismiss a resolution.”

    “In fact, the role of the Speaker is very clearly defined in Schedule 2 of the Rules of Business in the NA, and is essentially limited, in a VoNC, to announcing the result.”

    “And so, because the Speaker can’t dismiss a resolution for a VoNC, there is still a VoNC that has not been ‘voted upon’ by the Prime Minister. Consequently, the PM could not have advised that the assembly be dissolved under Article 58.”

    “In fact, in doing so, it may even be argued that he not only violated Article 5, by not obeying the Constitution but also subverted the Constitution under Article 6. It is, however, important to note that Article 6 is often used rather flippantly in common parlance.”

    “Finally, is the question of what the SC may do in all of this. One provision of the Constitution that has been mentioned a lot is Article 69, which bars courts from interfering in certain Parliamentary proceedings.”

    “However, the SC has laid out exceptions to this bar. Courts can interfere where there is not an ‘irregularity’ but a ‘patent illegality’, where there is clear mala fide, or where the matter in question affects the composition of the house, itself (such as in Farzand Ali).”

    “But while the SC may well find that it can interfere, how far it will go is another question. In theory, the SC could find the dissolution to be without legal effect and even order voting to resume on the VoNC. But given recent precedent, that may be a long shot.”

    The Supreme Court of Pakistan took suo moto notice of the Assembly proceedings on Sunday, April 3, and restrained the state institutions as well as the political parties from taking any unconstitutional acts and exploiting the situation.

  • Legal Battle: Is what Prime Minister Imran Khan did today, legal?

    Legal Battle: Is what Prime Minister Imran Khan did today, legal?

    After the National Assembly (NA) Deputy Speaker Qasim Khan Suri on Sunday “dismissed” the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan, terming it against Article 5 of the Constitution, the legal war began. PM Khan then addressed the nation, saying he had advised the President to dissolve the National Assembly, which the President approved. The country is in a state of shock and the main question is: Is what is going on, legal?

    BUT FIRST, WHAT HAPPENED IN THE ASSEMBLY SESSION?

    Loyalty to the state is the basic duty of every citizen under Article 5: Fawad Chaudhry

    The much-awaited and crucial NA session started after a delay to hold the vote on the no-confidence motion against Khan.

    Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry said, “On March 7, our official ambassador was invited to a meeting attended by the representatives of other countries. The meeting was informed that a motion against PM Imran was being presented,” he said, adding that this happened a day before the Opposition filed the no-trust move.

    “We were told that relations with Pakistan were dependent on the success of the no-confidence motion. We were told that if the motion fails, then Pakistan’s path would be very difficult. This is an operation for a regime change by a foreign government,” he alleged.

    NA speaker dismisses no-confidence motion against PM Imran, terms it contradictory to Article 5

    After Fawad Chaudhry spoke, Deputy Speaker Suri agreed with Fawad and said that the no-confidence motion was presented on March 8 and should be according to the law and the Constitution. “No foreign power shall be allowed to topple an elected government through a conspiracy,” he said, adding that the points raised by the minister were “valid”.

    He dismissed the motion, ruling that it was “contradictory” to the law, the Constitution, and the rules. The session ended and the government representatives walked out.

    LET’S GET LEGAL: What is Article 5?

    According to Article 5, “Loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen.”

    “Obedience to the Constitution and law is the [inviolable] obligation of every citizen wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.”

    THEN WHAT HAPPENED: On PM Imran Khan’s advice, President Arif Alvi approved the dissolution of the assembly

    In a surprise move, the premier on Sunday said that he has advised President Alvi to dissolve all the assemblies.

    President Dr Arif Alvi dissolved the National Assembly on the proposal of PM Khan.

    In a brief address to the nation after the no-confidence motion was rejected, the premier congratulated the nation and said that he had sent a proposal to the President to dissolve the NA and the nation should prepare for the next election.

    WAS WHAT HAPPENED LEGAL?

    What do the legal experts have to say?

    The Current reached out to legal experts to understand and get better clarity on the constitutional process in relevance to dismissing the no-trust move against PM Khan.

    Senior Lawyer and Journalist Muneeb Farooq terming the dismissal of the no-trust move “absolute nonsense” said, “The court will decide if what the speaker did is illegal and the no-confidence motion will likely move on. Today the court is closed, they [the Opposition] will take it to the court tomorrow.”

    Farooq further said, “Article 69 says that the court cannot question parliament proceedings, but there are exceptions,” adding that certain things were taken to court and the Supreme Court has ruled on them.

    WHAT’S FAROOQ’S MAIN POINT?

    Farooq said that the Prime Minister does not have the right to ask the President to dissolve the national assembly when there is a motion of no-confidence against him. He also added that the Speaker cannot dismiss a motion against the PM when the motion is already a part of the agenda. He added that Article 5 cannot be used in this situation, the way the government has used it.

    THE OTHER SIDE:

    Supreme Court Lawyer Chaudhry Faisal Hussain said, “The Deputy Speaker gave the ruling to dismiss the no-confidence motion. It is in his power to discard the no-confidence motion against the prime minister. Hence the motion gets dismissed and PM Khan still remains the prime minister.”

    WHAT’S HUSSAIN’S MAIN POINT?

    “Since Imran Khan is still Prime Minister, he can call for fresh elections, after dissolving the assembly, which he has done. The issue now will be that PM Khan has already moved past the no-confidence motion. If the assembly had not been dissolved, then perhaps the Supreme Court could make a ruling on the no-confidence issue.”

    ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW

    Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) Salman Akram Raja speaking to Geo News said that what happened in the National Assembly today was “highly unconstitutional”.

    He further said that SCP will look into the ruling given by the deputy speaker and could decide on allowing early elections or letting the no-confidence motion vote happen.

    The Joint Opposition had submitted the no-confidence motion to kick out PM Khan on March 8. According to reports, Chief Justice Umar Bandial has called his fellow justices to his place to discuss what is going on in the country.

    Meanwhile, sources say the Supreme Court may hold special proceedings today as well.