ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has dismissed review petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Income Support Levy Act, 2013.
The petitioners sought the review of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated December 28, 2021, which had declared the Act, 2013, enacted through the Finance Act, 2013, without observance of the legislative procedure prescribed by the 1973 Constitution, did not acquire the status of a valid law.
The 80-page judgment, authored by Chief Justice FCC Amin-ud-Din Khan, dismissed the review petitions saying; “The judgment under review does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record or other fundamental defect warranting interference in review jurisdiction. The constitutional questions raised therein were duly examined and determined, and no sufficient legal ground has been established for their reconsideration,” it added.
Justice Amin maintained that the constitutional validity of the Income Support Levy Act, 2013, had already been examined by a two-member Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Muhammad Mustafa Gigi and others (PLD 2022 SC 420), wherein leave to appeal was refused vide order dated December 28, 2021.
He wrote, notwithstanding the said determination and the pendency of review petitions there against, a subsequent three-member Bench, vide order dated June 21, 2022 in Civil Petition No.1718-K of 2021, granted leave on substantially identical constitutional questions and expressly contemplated reconsideration of the earlier determination.
The judgment noted; “The course adopted in the subsequent order, authored by Justice Munib Akhtar (senior puisne judge of Supreme Court), raises serious concerns regarding judicial discipline, legal norms and institutional propriety, particularly when the earlier determination remained operative and was already the subject of review proceedings.”
It said that it is a settled principle that coordinate or subsequent Benches must accord due regard to earlier judicial determinations, and any departure there from must conform to the established principles governing judicial precedent and the prescribed institutional procedure. Although refusal of leave does not invariably preclude consideration of a distinct petition, a subsequent grant of leave cannot, by itself, operate to review, modify or displace an earlier determination. Judicial independence must be exercised consistently with judicial discipline, restraint and institutional decorum.
CJ FCC stated; “The course adopted in the subsequent proceedings, insofar as it contemplated reconsideration of the earlier judgment without recourse to the appropriate judicial mechanism, was inconsistent with these requirements.” He reiterated that adherence to judicial discipline is indispensable to maintaining certainty, consistency and the institutional integrity of judicial adjudication.
The judgment observed that the principal controversy determined by the Supreme Court concerned the constitutional character of the Income Support Levy introduced through the Finance Act, 2013, and whether the legislation imposing such levy could validly be enacted as a Money Bill within the contemplation of Article 73(2) of “the Constitution”.
It said that the Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, its declared legislative object, the constitutional definition of taxation under Article 260(1), and the legislative procedure prescribed by Articles 70 and 73 of “the Constitution”. Upon consideration of these provisions, it concluded that the levy, notwithstanding its financial implications, did not fall within the constitutional classification of a Money Bill and that its enactment was consequently required to undergo the ordinary legislative procedure involving both Houses of Parliament.
The judgment emphasised that judicial certainty and the orderly administration of justice require that concluded controversies should not be reopened in the absence of a demonstrable error satisfying the established threshold for review.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments