The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench was reconstituted on Monday to begin hearings on challenges to the imposition of a super tax on high-income individuals under Section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
The reshuffle occurred after Justice Aminuddin Khan, who was presiding over the bench, noted that Justice Aamer Farooq had previously ruled on the matter as the chief justice of the Islamabad High Court.
The new bench now includes Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, alongside Justice Aminuddin.
Despite requests from counsel representing various industrial entities to delay proceedings until after Eid, the court rejected the plea, stating that hearings would be held daily starting Tuesday.
Super Tax Challenge
Several taxpayers have contested the constitutional validity of the amended Section 4C for the tax year 2023.
Previously, an Islamabad High Court division bench, comprising Justice Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, had ruled that one of the respondents should continue fulfilling their tax obligations under the amended provision.
Introduced in 2015 by the PML-N government, the super tax applies to wealthy individuals, associations of persons, and companies earning over Rs500 million annually. It imposes a 4% tax on banking companies and a 3% tax on other sectors, primarily to fund the rehabilitation of temporarily displaced persons.
Military Trial Case
In a separate hearing, senior lawyer Hamid Khan, representing the Lahore Bar Association, argued before the Constitutional Bench that military courts cannot be established without a constitutional amendment.
He asserted that any such amendment must be time-bound and include provisions for appealing military court decisions. However, he emphasized that the current circumstances do not justify widespread civilian trials in military courts.
Citing Article 175(3) of the Constitution, Khan argued that the judiciary must remain independent from the executive, meaning the military—being part of the executive—should not exercise judicial authority. He maintained that the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) was designed exclusively for military personnel, making any extension of its jurisdiction to civilians unconstitutional.
Khan further claimed that the F.B. Ali case had been misinterpreted to justify military trials for civilians and criticized Parliament for failing to review the issue despite recommendations to do so within two years. Allowing military courts to try civilians, he argued, would create a parallel judicial system and undermine the constitutional framework.
During the hearing, Justice Mandokhail inquired whether parliamentary approval was needed to declare the separation of the judiciary from the executive under Article 175(3). Khan responded that the constitutional wording was clear and did not require a formal declaration.
However, Justice Mazhar pointed out that in some past rulings, the Supreme Court had determined—by majority decision—that military courts were not subject to Article 175(3).
With Khan concluding his arguments, defence ministry counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmed is set to present his rebuttal in the next hearing.
