Summary: Petitioner was acquitted from 9-a under CNSA but still his name reflects in passport control list. Seeks removal. FIR No. 91/2024 dated 27.05.2024 U/s 9(1)3(a) CNAS P.S. ANF/Peshawar --- (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 15—Freedom of movement—Passport Control List (PCL)—Right to travel abroad—Scope and limitation. Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to move freely and travel within or outside Pakistan, subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. Continued retention of a citizen’s name on the Passport Control List after acquittal from criminal proceedings, and despite recommendations for removal by the competent agency, constitutes arbitrary interference with the constitutional right of movement and is contrary to due-process protections. (b) Passports Rules, 2021 ----R. 22—Passport Control List—Categories ‘A’ and ‘B’—Authority to include or delete name—Obligation to decide representation. Under R. 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021, names placed on the PCL are maintained under two categories: Category ‘A’: persons involved in anti-State or security-sensitive matters; Category ‘B’: persons refused passport facilities for reasons other than anti-State activities, on recommendations of a Government department or agency. The normal retention period is five years, extendable only upon written justification. The Directorate General of Immigration & Passports and the Ministry of Interior are bound to periodically review entries and to decide applications seeking removal within a reasonable time. Failure to do so amounts to maladministration and infringement of lawful rights. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997) ----S. 9—Acquittal of accused—Effect on administrative restrictions. Where an accused has been acquitted in a narcotics case and the prosecuting agency (ANF) itself recommends deletion of his name from the PCL, continuation of such restriction serves no lawful purpose. Administrative authorities cannot ignore judicial exoneration or agency recommendation without fresh justification. (d) Administrative law ----Natural justice—Duty to decide pending application—Direction to authority. When an application for removal of name from the PCL is pending before the Ministry of Interior despite clear recommendations of the ANF and judicial acquittal, the Court may direct the competent authority to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. Disposition Writ Petition disposed of. Ministry of Interior directed to decide the petitioner’s application dated 13 February 2025 for removal of his name from the PCL within fifteen (15) days in accordance with law. Citation: Ibrar Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan & others, W.P. No. 1235 of 2025, decided on 28 April 2025, per Muhammad Asif, J.—Islamabad High Court.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Arts. 15 & 199—Freedom of movement—Blocking of passport—Scope—Held, every citizen has the fundamental right to enter, remain in, and move freely throughout Pakistan, and to travel abroad subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest—Blocking of a citizen’s passport without notice, hearing, or lawful authority amounts to violation of due process, liberty, and freedom of movement guaranteed by the Constitution—Petitioner’s passport was blocked without issuance of any show-cause notice or order, which constituted arbitrary exercise of power and was void ab initio. (b) Passports Act, 1974 and Passports Rules, 2021 ----R. 22—Passport Control List (PCL)—Authority of Federal Government—Interpretation—Under R.22 of the Passports Rules, 2021, the power to regulate departure from and entry into Pakistan, and to maintain the Passport Control List, vests exclusively in the Federal Government, i.e., the Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively, and not in individual agencies such as FIA—Any blocking or inclusion of a person’s name in the PCL without Cabinet approval or due process is unlawful—Reliance placed on Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808), Controller General of Accounts v. Fazil Ahmad (2021 SCMR 800), Government of Sindh v. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi (2020 SCMR 1), and Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan (2024 MLD 1020 Islamabad). (c) Administrative law—Exercise of statutory power—When a statute prescribes a specific mode for doing an act, that mode must be followed; any deviation vitiates the action—Blocking of passport without prior notice, reasons, or opportunity of hearing held to be contrary to law and legislative intent—Reliance placed on Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan (2024 MLD 1020), Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan (2024 YLR 2616), Farah Mazhar v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2022 Lahore 119), and Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 Islamabad 316). (g) Disposition— Writ petition allowed—Blocking of petitioner’s passport declared illegal—Respondents directed to forthwith unblock Passport No. HF2740613. ---"Blocking of the Petitioner’s Passport violates his fundamental rights to due process, liberty, life, and freedom of movement, all of which are guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a well-established principle of law that when the law mandates a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done accordingly, otherwise, it constitutes non-compliance with the legislative intent. In this regard reliance is placed upon Dr. Shireen M. Mazari Versus FOP etc., 2024 MLD 1020, Rasikh Ellahi Versus FOP etc., 2024 YLR 2616, Tariq Shafi Versus FOP etc., W.P. No. 224/2024 , Faisal Maqbool Sheikh Versus FOP etc., Fawad Ahmed Versus FOP etc., WP 2129/2024, Sadaf Sharjeel Versus NAB etc., 2022 YLR 2441, Farah Mazhar Versus FOP etc., PLD 2022 Lahore 119, Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari Versus FOP etc., PLD 2019 Islamabad 316, Dr. Joseph Wilson Versus FOP etc., 2017 PCrLJ 1569, Mahboob Ali Abro Versus Ayan Ali etc., 2016 PSC 938 and Sohail Latif etc. Versus FOP etc., PLD 2008 Lahore 341. "

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 9, 14, 15 & 199 Fundamental rights—Right to dignity, reputation, and freedom of movement—Post-acquittal continuation of name in police records—Scope of relief—Petitioner, acquitted under S. 249-A Cr.P.C. from FIR No. 40/2022, sought deletion of his name from all police databases and issuance of a clear Police Character Certificate (PCC)—Held, once an acquittal attains finality, no stigma or adverse inference can lawfully persist against the acquitted person—However, police may retain internal historical records of FIRs for administrative, operational, or inter-agency purposes so long as such records are not misused—Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 cannot be invoked merely to interfere with internal record-keeping unless misuse or targeted discrimination is shown—Relief for expunction of entire record declined. (b) Police administration—Character certificate—Post-acquittal status ----Issuance of Police Character Certificate (PCC)—Obligation of police authorities—After acquittal based on complainant’s own clarification exonerating the accused, the police must issue a PCC omitting reference to the concerned FIR—Continued mention of an obsolete and unchallenged FIR in the PCC would unjustly stigmatize an exonerated citizen and offend the dignity guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Constitution—Direction issued to authorities to issue PCC within fifteen (15) days without reference to the FIR. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 249-A—Acquittal—Finality—Once an accused is acquitted under S. 249-A Cr.P.C., and the prosecution does not challenge the decision, the acquittal attains finality and fully exonerates the accused from criminal liability—No adverse record or inference can subsist thereafter. (g) Disposition — Petition partly allowed—Request for complete expunction of FIR from police database declined—Respondents directed to issue Police Character Certificate to the Petitioner omitting reference to FIR No. 40/2022 within fifteen days.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan–––Arts. 4, 9, 15, 18 & 25–––Right to movement, livelihood and dignity–––Unlawful restriction on travel–––Petitioner, a private cook employed by an Air Commodore during his posting in Italy, was repeatedly detained at the airport and prevented from travelling abroad on the pretext of being an “Army Deserter”–––Record revealed that petitioner was never an employee of any branch of the Armed Forces–––Respondents failed to produce any proof of military employment or desertion–––Held, that placing petitioner’s name on Exit Control List (ECL) without lawful authority and in absence of any credible material amounted to arbitrary exercise of power and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 15, 18 and 25 of the Constitution–––Such administrative action could not be sustained. (b) Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981–––S. 2–––Placing of name on Exit Control List–––Scope and limitations–––Petitioner’s name was placed on ECL on intelligence recommendation labeling him as a “deserter”–––No record or service history substantiated that claim–––Mere assumption or unverified intelligence input cannot justify curtailment of constitutional right to travel abroad–––Ministry of Interior and FIA required to act strictly within statutory framework and ensure that inclusion on ECL is supported by lawful material and due process. (c) Administrative law–––Due process and abuse of authority–––Duty of public functionaries–––Held, that no citizen may be deprived of liberty or right to travel except by due process of law–––Misuse of administrative discretion to obstruct petitioner’s lawful movement constituted abuse of power and violation of constitutional guarantees. (d) Fundamental rights–––Employment abroad–––Protection of livelihood–––Where petitioner’s overseas employment and visa renewal were jeopardized by arbitrary travel restrictions, Court intervened to protect his right to earn livelihood through lawful means abroad. Disposition: Petition allowed; respondents directed to forthwith remove petitioner’s name from Exit Control List and permit him to travel abroad.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 514---Forfeiture of bond---Scope of Court’s powers---Surety’s CNIC, Passport, SIMs and bank accounts blocked by Trial Court upon absconsion of accused---Legality and proportionality of coercive measures---Held, that under S.514, Cr.P.C., the Trial Court may forfeit the bond and recover penalty from the surety upon failure to produce the accused or to show sufficient cause---However, the statute does not authorize additional coercive actions such as blocking of CNIC, Passport, SIMs, or freezing of bank accounts---Such actions directly interfere with fundamental rights and must satisfy the test of proportionality---In the absence of any allegation of mala fide or collusion between the surety and the absconding accused, the extreme measures adopted by the Trial Court were found to be excessive and unconstitutional. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 9, 15 & 25---Fundamental rights---Restrictions on movement and deprivation of identification documents---Blocking of CNIC and Passport of surety found violative of fundamental rights to liberty, movement, and equality before law---Principle of proportionality applied---Court held that actions affecting personal liberty must have lawful basis and be the least restrictive means to achieve a legitimate aim---A surety, not being an accused or convict, cannot be subjected to punitive measures beyond the scope of bond forfeiture proceedings---Such actions were declared constitutionally infirm. (c) Administration of justice---- ----Natural justice---Right of hearing---Order passed without effective opportunity of hearing---Surety unable to appear or issue power of attorney due to blocked CNIC and Passport---Held, that the principle of audi alteram partem demands that no adverse order be passed without notice and opportunity to respond---Impugned order passed without affording due process rendered unsustainable. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 514---Deposit of surety amount---Petitioner’s offer to deposit full amount of PKR 500,000/- accepted---Purpose of surety bond achieved upon deposit---No further coercive action warranted---Trial Court directed to accept deposit and drop forfeiture proceedings accordingly. Disposition: Writ Petition allowed; Impugned Order dated 01.11.2024 set aside; CNIC, Passport, SIMs, and bank accounts of surety ordered to be unblocked subject to deposit of PKR 500,000/- before Trial Court within fifteen (15) days.