ISLAMABAD: While refusing to revive the Income Support Levy of 2013, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Wednesday censured an earlier Supreme Court judgement in the matter, noting that it raised “serious concerns regarding judicial discipline, legal norms and institutional propriety”.
Headed by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, a two-judge FCC bench had taken up a set of review petitions against the SC’s Dec 28, 2021 judgement, whereby leave to appeal was refused in a batch of petitions arising out of the Sindh High Court’s order concerning the constitutional validity of the Income Support Levy Act, 2013.
While dismissing review petitions filed by tax authorities, as well as several other connected appeals and petitions, the bench regretted how a three-judge bench granted leave to appeal on “substantially identical” questions, and “expressly contemplated reconsideration” of an earlier ruling by the same court.
“The course adopted in the subsequent order, authored by Justice Munib Akhtar, 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,” Justice Aminuddin observed.
Justice Aminuddin-led bench refuses to revive Income Support Levy Act; faults verdict authored by Justice Munib Akhtar for derailing ‘consistency of judicial pronouncements’
It is worth noting that Justice Akhtar is the senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court, and is currently serving as acting chief justice, in the absence of Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi.
However, the FCC verdict did not quote from Justice Akhtar’s order, nor did it contain any direction or penalty against the brother judge.
Judicial consistency
The original case revolved around the levy, introduced through the Finance Act. Both the high court and the first SC bench ruled that it did not count as “taxation”, and thus could not be passed through a money bill.
The FCC verdict agreed with this assessment, but pointed out that the three-judge bench — of which Justice Akhtar was also a member — had taken up the matter while similar petitions were already pending adjudication before another bench of the same court, and issued its own verdict on June 21, 2022.
This, the FCC ruling noted, was an aspect of institutional significance, as it derailed the consistency of judicial pronouncements.
“It is a settled principle that coordinate or subsequent benches must accord due regard to earlier judicial determinations and any departure therefrom must conform to the established principles governing judicial precedent and the prescribed institutional procedure,” the ruling said.
Although refusal of leave to appeal 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, the FCC held.
Judicial independence must be exercised consistently with judicial discipline, restraint and institutional decorum, the FCC CJ emphasised.
Published in Dawn, October 29th, 2026
