Syed I am not an expert in Law. My question is simple has the case been dismissed?
Yes but before to interpret this yes wrong You need to Know the current Case was Filed by Qazi Faez Esa and others against The President of Pakistan and others
So dismissal of this case will have no adverse effect on Government ....
As far Presidential Reference against the Qazi Faez Esa by President of Pakistan it was Quashed in june this year ....
[For reference click here]
So those who are celebrating today are idiot this decision in fact make matter more worse for Faez Esa as the Supreme Court Order clearly states in section of
"REFERRAL TO FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE"
Paragraph # 141, page 168
"These errors or defects do not erase Mrs. Isa’s ownership of the London Properties, the primary fact which forms the basis of the Reference and which is not denied by the petitioner. Whilst the ownership of the London Properties is not disputed, the source of funds for their purchase and the mode by which these funds were transferred abroad require explanation. Otherwise, an unexplained investment by the spouse of a Judge of the Superior Courts, who is a holder of public office, compromises the integrity of the learned Judge and ultimately the probity and credibility of the institution which he serves."
While in the
paragraph # 139 page 167 of the same section of SC decision States
"However, what has escaped the attention of learned
counsel during this intense discourse is another equally
important fundamental principle of the Constitution, namely,the accountability of the Judges of the Superior Courts. An independent judiciary is certainly a necessity for any civilised society governed by laws to prosper and thrive. But in utmost good faith neither Judges nor the institution can retain the public trust when serious stigmas are cast on their integrity. Recalling the quotation from the Holy Quran at the start of this judgment, the institution cannot be perceived to be ignoring an unpleasant allegation of undeclared foreign assets of a family member of a Judge."
now read the above stated paragraphs specially the highlighted part with the below mention paragraphs from the section of
SUO MOTU JURISDICTION OF SUPREME JUDICIAL COUNCIL
Paragraph 145, page 171
"Next, we in our short order also directed the Chairman FBR to submit his report, regarding the proceedings before the Commissioner (Inland Revenue), to the SJC for its consideration. This was done to give SJC the chance, if it so wished, to commence proceedings against the petitioner in exercise of its suo motu jurisdiction. However, it is reiterated that our short order dated 19.06.2020 merely issues a direction to the Chairman FBR and in no way obliges the SJC to take any action based on the report. The SJC may do so of its own volition if it considers that the report justifies any action against the petitioner. But it may also file the report if it finds that the same contains no substance/merit. The SJC is the only constitutional body which can examine the conduct of a Superior Court Judge. Therefore our direction for the disclosure of the findings and the record of the verification proceedings by the FBR to the SJC acknowledges the latter’s exclusive jurisdiction in this matter. Consequently, the Chairman FBR’s report is a piece of information to be evaluated by the SJC in its suo motu jurisdiction. "
and the final paragraph of this section of SC verdict states
Paragraph 146, page 172
"This includes the right to appeal against the decision of the Commissioner or against any other adverse order passed at the appellate stage. To our minds, the two directions, namely, the filing of the report by the Chairman FBR before the SJC and the protection of the affected persons right to appeal, issued by us were necessary
in the interests of justice.
The jurisdiction of the FBR is concerned with taxing income whereas the jurisdiction of the SJC is related only with the misconduct of a Judge. Therefore, the proceedings and/or the outcome before one forum do not affect those of the other forum.
However, the SJC may if so inclined in the exercise of its suo motu jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution take into consideration any proceedings before the tax authorities or orders passed by them."
So in summary :
Faez Esa is required to come clean
- This case was filed by Faez Esa and one the his claim is that it was malafide intentions of Government, Military and ISI which was bases of reference but SC Court does not agree with faez Esa in this
- SC uphold the Principal of Accountability of Judges but quash the reference as it was found short on many legal grounds, therefore referred the case first to be investigated by Concern Authorities i.e. FBR
- SC uphold the right of Appeal of Mrs. Esa and Children
- Above two are similar to NS case where investigation was ordered by JIT and other cases against NS were referred to Lower courts.
- Finally SC also uphold the jurisdiction of Soumoto of SJC against which Faez esa was seeking relief, further implication of this would be SJC if find any information in FBR report or later at any stage of proceeding in FBR could take Soumoto OR after the conclusion of FBR findings and appeals before commissioner Government could again approach SJC.
