ISLAMABAD – A Supreme Court constitutional bench while hearing the petitions challenging the imposition of super tax questioned how Article 10-A, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, relates to taxation matters.
A SC five-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard arguments presented by petitioner’s counsel Ahmad Sukhaira.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar raised the question about Article 10-A.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi asked whether a rise in petrol prices from Rs150 to Rs200 would constitute a “windfall profit,” and similarly, if sugar prices increased from Rs160 to Rs170, would it still qualify as windfall profit.
Responding to the bench, Sukhaira remarked, “Simplicity itself can be striking,” prompting Justice Mazhar to quip whether that was Sukhaira’s own simplicity. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail noted that the council could have simply argued about how much tax should be levied. Sukhaira countered that the government’s policy statements were contradictory, to which Justice Mazhar observed that the lawyer seemed only dissatisfied with the tax ratio.
Sukhaira argued that the windfall profit tax arises from policy decisions and questioned how tax could be justified when only a few benefit while the majority suffers losses. He said his case relied on Article 10-A because income tax laws do not explicitly cover fundamental rights.
Justice Mazhar, however, maintained that Article 10-A deals with fair trial and due process, not taxation, and pointed out that income tax laws contain no provision for public hearings. Sukhaira insisted that citizens should have the right to a public hearing in tax matters, calling fair trial a separate constitutional right.
Justice Mandokhail asked about the procedure for imposing taxes and where the alleged violation of due process lay in this case. Sukhaira further claimed that the tax also violated Entry 47 of the Constitution, adding light-heartedly that he was 57 years old and that his children, who are barristers, were present in court.
When Justice Mandokhail asked his age and heard “57,” he jokingly remarked, “Do you consider 57 old?”—a comment that drew laughter in the courtroom. Sukhaira concluded by saying, “One day none of us will be here, but this court’s decision will remain.” The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.