• Court upholds FST order reinstating 40 officers linked to 2023 boat capsize off Greece
• Agency argues tribunal overturned sackings on technicalities; three-judge bench directs agency to fulfil requirements of due process

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for the Fe­­deral Investigation Agency (FIA) to reopen a departmental inquiry against officials allegedly linked to the fatal 2023 Greek migrant boat capsize tragedy.

However, the court rejected the FIA’s appeal against an April 14 Federal Service Tribunal (FST) ruling, upholding the order to reinstate the dismissed FIA officers.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Maz­har, took up appeals moved by the Dire­c­to­rate General Federal Investiga­tion Age­ncy (FIA) challenging the FST order.

Pursuant to the Greece boat tragedy of 2023, FIA had penalised and dismissed 40 officers who were found to have allegedly facilitated the human smuggling of vulnerable individuals.

Around 286 people departed from Libya, of whom 155 were killed when the boat capsized off the coast of Greece.

Representing FIA, Deputy Attorney General Raja Shafqat Abbasi argued that the FST had set aside the dismissal orders merely on technical and procedural lapses, such as the non-compliance of procedure and a lack of opportunity for cross-examination.

He argued that officers posted at the time at the Lahore, Karachi and Multan airports were under a statutory duty under their job descriptions to properly scrutinise tickets, passports, visas and the purpose of the visits to Libya, noting it was a war-torn country rather than a tourist destination.

It was the duty of the officers to apply their minds as to why more than 286 persons were travelling to Libya from different airports of the country, Mr Abbasi said.

The counsel submitted that there was at least gross omission and negligence, amounting to direct facilitation on the part of these officials, which enabled human smugglers to traffic innocent citizens from Pakistan to Libya and onward to Europe via a sea route.

This led to the deaths of 155 Pakistanis and caused serious damage to the image of Pakistan internationally, he added.

Mr Abbasi contended that if there was any procedural lapse in holding the departmental inquiry, the accused officials were not entitled to a “clean chit” of reinstatement in the job.

At most, a fresh opportunity should be given to the FIA to conduct a de novo in­­quiry after providing a due opportunity for hearing and cross-examination, so that appropriate action may be taken aga­inst those found responsible in accor­da­nce with the law, the counsel contended.

Concluding the hearing, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the FIA to initiate a fresh inquiry, if they deem it fit, in accordance with the law against the officials for whom evidence was on the record, after giving the officials an opportunity for a hearing.

Published in Dawn, October 29th, 2026

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Wednesday regretted the course adopted by a bench of the Supreme Court on an already determined matter by describing the approach as “something that raises serious concerns regarding judicial discipline, legal norms and institutional propriety”.

“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,” observed FCC Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan in his order.

A two-judge FCC bench, comprising Justice Aminuddin and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, had taken up dozens of review petitions against a Dec 28, 2021 SC judgment, whereby leave to appeal was refused in a batch of petitions arising out of Sindh High Court’s 2020 order concerning the constitutional validity of the Income Support Levy Act 2013.

The two-judge SC bench had upheld that the Income Support Levy Act, having been enacted through the Finance Act 2013 without observance of the legislative procedure prescribed by the Constitution, did not acquire the status of a valid law.

The bench comprised Justice Aminuddin — who now heads the FCC formed under the 26th Amendment — and Justice Qazi Faez Isa, who went on to become the SC chief justice in 2023. Justice Isa penned the judgment.

Despite the 2021 decision and the pendency of the present review petitions, a subsequent three-judge SC bench, including Justice Akhtar, through its June 21, 2022 order, granted leave on substantially identical constitutional questions and expressly contemplated reconsideration of the earlier determination.

In his judgment, the FCC chief justice also criticised the SC’s subsequent conduct by describing the development as an aspect of institutional significance concerning judicial discipline and consistency of judicial pronouncements.

Justice Aminuddin recalled that the constitutional validity of the Income Support Levy Act had already been examined by the two-judge SC bench in the ‘Commissioner Inland Revenue versus Muhammad Mustafa Gigi’ case in which the appeal was refused.

The FCC top judge went on to express “serious concerns” over the 2022 SC ruling by Justice Akhtar.

“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,” he stated.

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, ruled the FCC.

Judicial independence must be exercised consistently with judicial discipline, restraint and institutional decorum, the FCC chief justice stressed.

He added that the course adopted in the subsequent proceedings, insofar as it contemplated reconsideration of the 2021 judgment, “without recourse to the appropriate judicial mechanism, was inconsistent with these requirements”.

“We reiterate that adherence to judicial discipline is indispensable to maintaining certainty, consistency and the institutional integrity of judicial adjudication,” Justice Aminuddin observed.

Referring to the present review petitions, he noted that the 2021 SC 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 was established for their reconsideration, Justice Aminuddin observed.

Consequently, the instant review petitions were dismissed, and the Dec 28, 2021 judgment “shall remain undisturbed”.

The FCC order recalled that the principal controversy determined by the 2021 SC ruling 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.

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 distinction between a Money Bill and ordinary legislation is substantive and reflects the constitutional allocation of legislative authority between the two Houses of Parliament,” the FCC noted.

It said that Article 73 (procedure with respect to Money Bill) constituted a “limited exception to the ordinary legislative procedure” prescribed under Article 70 (introduction and passing of bills) and cannot be expanded “merely by characterising a legislative measure as a levy or incorporating it into a Finance Act”.