ISLAMABAD: The Petitioner Advocate in a petition fixed for hearing on September 21, 2026, before the Islamabad High Court, has sought record regarding the eligibility of the newly-appointed Members of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR).
The record covered with specific reference to their 15 years active practice as Advocates of High Courts of Pakistan, while interim order has already been passed by the IHC, whereby it was directed that all appointments of ATIR Members “shall be subject to the final outcome” of the petition.
Mudassir Malik, Advocate of Hazara-KPK has moved an application under Article 19A of the Constitution & Right of Access to Information Act, addressed to the Ministry of Law, the FPSC and the Chairman/ Registrar, ATIR Headquarters Islamabad. Application draws attention to the interim order dated 10.04.2025 passed by the IHC, whereby it was directed in unambiguous terms that all appointments of ATIR Members “shall be subject to the final outcome” of the pending writ petition.
At the heart of the application lies Section 130 (3) of the Ordinance, which prescribes that no person is eligible for appointment as a Member of ATIR unless he has been an Advocate of a High Court for not less than fifteen years, in addition to other prescribed qualifications. The petitioner has specifically requested, in respect of each of the appointees, the date of enrolment as Advocate and documentary proof, certificate of enrolment/ practice or equivalent Bar Council record, establishing not less than fifteen years’ standing in active practice as on the date of consideration and appointment.
The application further seeks the scrutiny and verification record, minutes, evaluation criteria and recommendations of the FPSC or the Selection Committee/Board that conducted the appointment process, along with the formal notification issued by the Ministry of Law.
The petitioner has contended that the record sought squarely falls within the definition of “public record” under the Right of Access to Information Act, and attracts none of the statutory exemptions, given that it concerns the eligibility of holders of public/judicial office and touches upon a matter of ongoing constitutional litigation of admitted public importance.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments