In a rare turn of events, the chief judge of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi and the Federal Minister of Finance and Income, Senator Muhammad Aurangzeb, met face to face, aroused a debate in legal circles on the convenience of such a commitment. The meeting between the best office of the judiciary and the economic bar of the government underlined the need to "Coordinated efforts" Between the judiciary and the executive to respect the rule of law and protect the rights of citizens. The unusual interaction, owned without the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan present, was accompanied by an official photograph and a press release, a decision that many lawyers believe to be "not called" and loaded with optics that blur the fine line between the judiciary and the executive. The meeting stressed the importance of coordinated efforts between the judiciary and the executive in compliance with the rule of law and the safeguarding of the fundamental rights of citizens. Some initiates underline that the CJP Afridi and Aurangzeb are also former college scholarship holders, stressing that the meeting should be seen in this light. However, for many lawyers, such commitments "against judicial standards"In particular when the Federal Board of Return (FBR), which operates within the framework of the Ministry of Finance, is one of the greatest litigants before the Supreme Court. FBR disputes in Spotlight During this time, concerns are already high on the functioning of alternative dispute settlement committees (ADRC) – organizations working under the administrative control of the FBR to resolve tax -related issues, in particular those involving public companies (SO). Last month, a bench led by CJP Afridi ordered a suspension in all cases in instance before the ADRC. The court also pointed out concerns about how ADRC members were appointed, ordering the FBR to request comments from all stakeholders before finalizing the appointment. The case will be heard on September 8. A lawyer representing a SOE argued that the Adrc mechanism had proven "destructive" For such companies. "They are crushed by taxation and have no recourse against ADRC," He said, alleging that billions of tax rupees had been forcibly recovered in June, without legally necessary advice to achieve income targets.
"All public enterprises for profit are destroyed," He added, while another advice argued that the ADRs had to operate independently and freely of the influence of the FBR to have credibility. Judicial independence has been worried since the adoption of the 26th constitutional amendment, legal experts have expressed discomfort that they consider as a domination of increasing executives over the judiciary. Even tax lawyers complain that higher courts offered little reduction to individuals injured by the FBR orders. The high court of the Sindh, for example, would have rendered hundreds of judgments in favor of the FBR. In SC, judges with expertise in income law are often not assigned to such questions. In this context, the perspective of the CJP meeting to the Minister of Finance has not enabled certain lawyers, who fear that this will send the bad signal to the stakeholders of the company whose affairs expect the arbitration of the Supreme Court. They argue that the best judge in the country should avoid creating a perception that the judiciary and the executive are "On the same wavelength" Regarding income collection. However, it is also relevant to mention that CJP Afridi has shown a desire to engage through the political spectrum. In recent weeks, he has also met the head of the PTI Omar Ayub and Barrister Gohar.
