The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has not yet appointed another judge to consider a request by Justice William Ramlall for constitutional redress for the deduction of millions in income tax from his salary.
On April 2, Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang had granted an adjournment to facilitate the appointment.
Justice Chang had expressed his intention to recuse himself from hearing the case, in which it is claimed that tax exemptions granted to both him and acting Chancellor Carl Singh are discriminatory against Justice Ramlall, who says the situation has left him feeling inferior.
When the matter was called yesterday, Justice Chang informed the court that the JSC has not yet appointed a temporary judge to hear it.
Justice Chang noted that the doctrine of necessity provides that a temporary judge would have to be appointed by the JSC to hear the matter since he has to recuse himself. He noted that a judge has to be appointed so as not to affect Ramlall’s constitutional right of having his matter heard.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s Chambers, the respondents, has been granted 14 days to file its affidavit in response.
Attorney Prithima Kissoon who is attached to the chambers, had requested 21 days to make the filing. This was however denied by Justice Chang who said that only 14 days will be granted as the respondent had been previously given adequate time to file its response.
The matter has now been adjourned to June 25 at 11 am for reports.
In a constitutional motion, filed on January 23 in the High Court, Justice Ramlall asked for a refund of the approximately $34 million with interest, which was deducted from his salary from 2004 to the end of 2014. In addition, he is also requesting declarations that he has been denied equality and equal protection and benefit under the law; that Section 13 of the Income Tax Act is discriminatory against him; that the deduction of income tax is an unlawful alteration of the terms and conditions of his service; that the State is not entitled to take or receive income tax from him and that in keeping with article 197 (10) he is entitled to a monthly pension and retirement benefits of not less than seven eights of his salary at the time of his retirement.
“At the date of my appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature all judges including the Chancellor and Chief Justice paid income tax on their judicial incomes and the relief of two judges from liability to the exclusion of others has been severely prejudicial to me,” he argued in the motion, which lists him as the applicant and the Attorney General as the respondent.
The judge, who was appointed in July 2000, said during a 2003 meeting between the judges and the Executive President, representations were made concerning the grant of exemption from income tax on incomes as judges. Those representations, Justice Ramlall said, were not successful except for the passage of an amendment in 2004 to “allow the Chancellor and the Chief Justice exemption from income tax in accordance with Section 13 (a) of the Income Tax Act.”
Justice Ramlall said that what sets the Chancellor and Chief Justice apart from the other judges is that they have some responsibilities of an administrative nature. Nevertheless, he argued that the “nature and character” of the judicial services rendered by all members of the Supreme Court of Judicature is the same and the added administrative responsibilities is no valid ground for the difference of treatment in relation to exemption from income tax.
