On Friday, Supreme Court declared that the presidential reference filed against Supreme Court judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa is “tainted with mala fide in law” Sounds fancy, right? But what’s the back story?
You will find dozens of articles precisely talking about different angles of the Justice Isa case, we won’t be doing an analysis here rather give you a timeline from where it began and ended.
- In 2017, The Supreme Court took up a suo motu case of the Faizabad sit-in staged by the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) SC Justice Isa in the judgment heavily criticized the law enforcers, intelligence agencies and the Army’s media for not using their authority well.
- In March 2018, a petition was filed against the appointment of Justice Qazi Faez Isa as Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court.
- In April 2019, The Punjab Bar Council (PbBC) demanded the removal of Justice Isa for ‘criticising’ the armed forces as well as premier spy agency Inter-Services Intelligence in a verdict in the Faizabad sit-in case. This demand was declined by Pakistan Bar Council.
- In May 2019, presidential reference was filed against SC Justice Isa under the article 209 of the Constitution. This reference accused Justice Karim Khan and Justice Qazi Isa have properties in foreign countries.
Just a side note: these are the same judges who gave a very strong verdict against against government and armed forces for being unprofessional with the job during TLP Faizabad sit in.
- On 1st June 2020, MQM-P leader Farogh Naseem resigns from his post as law minister on the “request of the prime minister of Pakistan” to represent government in the court against Justice Isa
- On 20th June 2020, the Supreme Court threw the reference out against Justice Isa, terming it “invalid”
- On 22 October,2020 Justice Isa and his wife provided their detailed document regarding income tax and properties, voluntarily.
- On 24 October,2020 declared that the presidential reference filed against Supreme Court judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa is “tainted with mala fide in law”
The Judgement states that The prime minister, the law minister and the attorney general totally misinterpreted Section 116 (b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and applied it to his wife and children as the law was applicable only to a dependent wife and those children who were minor and dependent. But this matter is now referred to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) for initiating tax proceedings