Justice William Ramlall has moved to the court to seek constitutional redress for the deduction of millions in income tax from his salary, arguing that the granting of tax exemptions only to the acting Chancellor and Chief Justice is discriminatory and has left him feeling inferior.
In a constitutional motion, filed last Friday in the High Court, Ramlall is asking for a refund of the approximately $34M 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 deductions 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 argues in the motion, which lists him as the applicant and the Attorney General as the respondent.
The judge, who was appointed in July 2,000, said in his supporting affidavit that the acting Chancellor Carl Singh, acting Chief Justice Ian Chang and himself are all judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature, rendering judicial services as members of the court and enjoying the same security of tenure and protection from unlawful alteration of terms and conditions of service.
He 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.”
He said what sets the Chancellor and Chief Justice apart from the other judges is that they have some responsibilities of an administrative nature. Nevertheless, he argues 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.
He further said the difference in privilege between him as a judge and the Chancellor and Chief Justice generates “a feeling of inferiority and hardens the struggle against demotivation in relation to the heavy judicial risks which I continuously perform.”
He also said this denial has a “psychological effect upon me tending to make me feel inferior to those judges… The denial of the privilege causes me to feel unworthy and made me an innocent victim of the discriminatory exercise of State power in the legislature.”
Justice Ramlall further said he has been carrying these feeling since the exemption was granted to the Chancellor and the Chief Justice and the effects and burden have been “continuous without hope of diminution. The aggravation which I suffer has been and continues to be severe while I continue to suffer financial loss by being denied equality of treatment and the benefit and protection of the law….”
He said that the creation of a sub class of members of the Supreme Court for purposes of exemption is without the objective of good governance. “The judicial income of the members of the Supreme Court ought not to bear charges that are different and unequal and signifies authoritarian and arbitrary rule within the justice system itself. The grant of the exemption from income tax by Parliament is outside their authority and not within the scope of Article 65 of the Constitution,” he further says. He said he was advised and believes the distinction between the Chancellor and the Chief Justice and other judges is unlawful and discriminatory. He said the different privileges created by the exemption to impose unequal burdens upon judicial incomes are subversive of the rule of law and inconsistent with democratic governance.
According to the judge, this division has created a perception of partiality inconsistent with the independence of the judiciary by the State.
He also said he believes that he is entitled to constitutional compensation and/or damages and/or a refund on income tax paid to “enable me to recover the measure of my loss which includes monies taken or received by the State on my account for income tax caused by the denial of the exemption.”
He accused the State of failing to put the necessary machinery into operation so that he can benefit from the increased pension and superannuation benefits which the provision was intended to provide.
Justice Ramlall also argues that the approximate two-thirds of his salary, which is the consistent level of pension received by ordinary public servants, is not “enough to maintain the standard of living I currently enjoy as a judge and to keep me from practicing at the Bar on retirement.”
