Summary: (a) Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance (XLVI of 1981)--- ----S. 2---Passports Act (XX of 1974), Ss. 3 & 8---Passports Rules, 2021, R. 23---Removal of name sought from Exit Control List (ECL) on medical grounds---Right to travel---Fundamental rights, protection of---Mere criminal involvement does not justify ECL placement---Petitioner aged 85-yearswas suffering from serious health conditions and sought removal of his name from the Exit Control List (ECL) to travel abroad for urgent medical treatment---His name had been placed on the ECL in connection with a NAB Reference relating to alleged financial misappropriation in a housing society---The petitioner argued that his continued placement on the ECL was arbitrary, lacked legal basis and violated his fundamental rights under Arts. 4, 9 & 15 of the Constitution---The case was later transferred to Anti-Corruption Establishment and NAB no longer held jurisdiction---Question for determination before the High Court was as to "Whether the placement of the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List (ECL) by the Ministry of Interior, based solely on NAB's request and without independent justification or adherence to legal procedure, violated the petitioner's fundamental rights?"---Held: The superior courts of the country have consistently ruled against belated ECL placements, especially when individuals had previously travelled freely---The case reported as 2017 SCMR 1179 clarified that mere registration of a criminal case was insufficient for ECL placement and reaffirmed that restrictions must align with the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010---Further the Supreme Court emphasized that executive discretion was not absolute and upheld High Court decisions striking down unlawful restrictions---Consequently this being settled law, mere criminal involvement did not justify ECL placement---Citizens had a fundamental right to liberty under Art. 9, which, combined with Arts. 4 & 15, included the right to travel, unless restricted by a law enacted in the public interest---Moreover, mere registration of a crime did not constitute a "public interest" justification for restricting a person's liberty---Therefore, the respondent's actions in placing the petitioner's name on the ECL based on the criminal case were inconsistent with established legal principles---Ministry of Interior's decision to place the petitioner's name on the ECL was deemed arbitrary and automatic---This action was solely driven by instructions from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), without independent assessment or a reasoned order from the Ministry---Consequently, the Ministry failed to demonstrate a legitimate basis for exercising its authority under S. 2(3) of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981---This lack of due process resulted in a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights, specifically Arts. 4, 9, and 15 of the Constitution---Furthermore, it unjustly prevented the petitioner from seeking medical treatment---Therefore, because of respondents' actions placing the petitioner on the ECL, barring his international travel, and removing him from the flight, contempt notice was served upon the delinquent officials, as their actions were arbitrary, invalid from the beginning (void ab initio), and beyond their legal authority (without jurisdiction)---Respondents' actions in placing the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List (ECL), or Passport Control List (PCL), if any, were unlawful, therefore, same were overturned by directing the respondents to immediately remove the petitioner's name from the ECL---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Wajid Shamsul Hassan's case PLD 1997 Lahore 617 and Ayyan Ali's case 2017 SCMR 1179 rel. (b) Passports Act (XX of 1974)--- ----Ss. 3 & 8---Passports Rules, 2021, R. 23---Regulatory framework of foreign travel for Pakistani citizens---Recalling, cancellation and impounding of passports---Essence and scope---Issuance of show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing before impounding, requirement of---Exception---Pakistani citizens' travel is regulated by the Passports Act of 1974 and its related rules---Section 3 of the Passports Act, 1974 mandates a valid passport for foreign travel, while S. 8 thereof grants the Federal Government broad authority to manage passports, including recalling, cancellation, and impounding---Section 8 of the Act, 1974 generally requires a show-cause notice before these actions, except in national security cases---A review process is available for such cases---Rule 23 of the Passports Rules, 2021 outlines the procedures for impounding passports, specifying authorized officials and grounds for action, including security threats, avoiding prosecution, and criminal activities---Impounded passports are to be kept in custody, and failure to surrender a passport upon requisition is punishable---Section 8 of the Passports Act, 1974, empowers the Federal Government, through a Secretary or authorized officer, to recall passports for cancellation, impoundment, or confiscation---This requires a show cause notice to the passport holder, as per subsection (2), however, subsection (3) exempts the government from providing notice or a hearing if the passport holder is deemed to be involved in subversive activities or actions detrimental to Pakistan's interests or foreign relations---Subsection (4) then grants the affected person the right to challenge the decision. Syed Abul Aala Maududi's case PLD 1969 Lah. 908 and Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada's case PLD 1973 Kar. 132 ref. (c) Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance (XLVI of 1981)--- ----S. 2---Foreign travel, restriction on---Inclusion of name in Exit Control List (ECL)---Ministry of Interior passing the order restricting foreign travel of Pakistani citizen---Legality---Power, authority and jurisdiction of Ministry of Interior---Power to restrict travel under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 resides solely with the Federal Cabinet and not the secretary of the Ministry of Interior---Regardless, the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan are beyond any form of curtailment. Mustafa Impex's case PLD 2016 SC 808 rel. (d) Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance (XLVI of 1981)--- ----S. 2---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 9 & 15 ---Placing restriction on foreign travel---Inclusion of name in Exit Control List (ECL)---International travel being a fundamental right---Fundamental rights, protection of---Scope---Foreign travel can be restricted despite valid travel documents---Reasons for placing restriction on foreign travel can be withheld---Travel restrictions placed by state must be lawful---Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees legal protection for all---Articles 15, 9 & 4 establish the right to travel, including international travel, as a fundamental right, though it's subject to lawful, reasonable restrictions in the public interest---Arbitrary limitations, like those based on political beliefs, are unacceptable; restrictions must be for genuine national security concerns---Travel is vital for information access and personal liberty, linked to freedom of speech and association---Fundamental rights protect individuals from arbitrary state power and are essential for a free society---Even unenumerated rights integral to named rights are protected---While fundamental rights are crucial, they must be balanced against the State's need to maintain order---The Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on certain rights in the public interest, but these restrictions must be lawful---The right to travel, a basic human right, is integral to personal liberty---International travel is not merely a convenience but a fundamental right under Art. 9 of our Constitution---Modern society necessitates global mobility for education, employment, and personal fulfillment, making travel a crucial aspect of both liberty and life---Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, empowers the Federal Government to restrict travel under S. 2, even with valid documents, if deemed in the public interest---Although S. 2 of the Ordinance 1981 allows restrictions without prior hearings, overriding natural justice, Supreme Court rulings mandate that the Federal Cabinet exercises this authority---While prior hearings are often omitted to prevent immediate departures, the Federal Cabinet can withhold reasons for the ban if deemed against the public interest. Kashif Khan Tanoli for Petitioner. Ms. Wajiha Mehdi, Assistant Attorney General and Ghous Bakhsh, Special Prosecutor NAB for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 15, 199, 4 & 10-A Freedom of movement—Placement of citizen’s name on Exit Control List (ECL), Passport Control List (PCL), and Provincial National Identification List (PNIL)—Scope and legality—Petitioner’s name was placed on ECL and PCL based on FIRs registered against him without affording any notice or hearing—Petitioner had been granted pre-arrest bail in all such cases—No approval of Federal Government was shown for inclusion of name on PCL as required under Rule 22 of the Passport Rules, 2021—Held, that freedom of movement is a fundamental right guaranteed under Art.15 of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed without due process—Absence of notice, hearing, or lawful authority rendered the action unlawful—Right to liberty and movement includes dignity and the right to travel for lawful purposes such as Umrah—Failure to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards violated Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution—Such restrictions, in the absence of cogent justification and legal authority, are repugnant to constitutional protections and liable to be set aside—Petition allowed. Cited Cases: • Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2019 Islamabad 316 • Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan, 2024 MLD 1020 • Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan, 2024 YLR 2616 • Controller General of Accounts v. Fazil Ahmad, 2021 SCMR 800 • Govt. of Sindh v. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi, 2020 SCMR 1 • Messrs Mustafa Impex v. Govt. of Pakistan, PLD 2016 SC 808 • Faisal Maqbool Sheikh v. Federation of Pakistan, W.P. No. 2141/2023

Summary: (a) Passport Rules, 2021— ----R.22—Passport Control List (PCL)—Placement of name—Scope and legality— Appellants challenged placement and retention of their names on Passport Control List (PCL)—Appellants were neither nominated in FIR nor refused passports under law—Validity—Held, under Rule 22 of Passport Rules, 2021, names can be placed in Category ‘A’ only if persons are involved in anti-State activities or their travel abroad is prejudicial to State interest, and in Category ‘B’ if they have been refused passport under rules—Appellants did not fall within either category—Placement and retention of their names on PCL without fulfilling criteria prescribed by law was without lawful authority and of no legal effect—Order retaining names on PCL was liable to be set aside. (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973— ----Arts. 4 & 9—Right to life and liberty—Right to travel abroad—Curtailment—Limitations— Right to travel abroad though not expressly provided in Constitution is an integral part of right to liberty and to be treated in accordance with law—Such right can only be restricted in accordance with law and upon existence of valid legal grounds—Curtailment of appellants’ right to travel abroad without lawful justification and without their involvement in any criminal proceedings was violative of their constitutional rights—Restriction imposed was unlawful and liable to be struck down. Cited Cases: Government of Pakistan v. Dada Amir Haider Khan PLD 1987 SC 504 Sheikh Shan Ilahi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2023 Lahore 359 (c) Exit control / travel restrictions—Criminal proceedings—Effect of mere investigation or FIR— ----Mere pendency of criminal proceedings or investigation—Insufficient ground— Appellants’ names were placed on PCL on ground that their mother was nominated in corruption case and was absconder—Appellants themselves were neither nominated in FIR nor accused in any proceedings—Held, mere registration or pendency of criminal case, investigation, or suspicion cannot justify curtailment of liberty of a citizen or restriction on travel abroad—Restriction imposed on appellants solely due to alleged acts of another person was illegal and unjustified. Cited Cases: Federal Government v. Ms. Ayyan Ali 2017 SCMR 1179 Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan 2019 P Cr.L.J 1123 Sohail Latif v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2008 Lahore 341 Muhammad Khyzer Yousuf Dada v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2011 Karachi 546 Dr. Joseph Wilson v. Federation of Pakistan 2017 P Cr.L.J 1569 (d) Constitutional jurisdiction—Administrative order—Judicial review— ----Order passed without lawful justification—Interference— Respondents failed to show any lawful justification or material to retain names of appellants on PCL—Appellants were minors at time of alleged occurrence and no allegation was attributed to them—Continued restriction on their movement was unlawful—High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, set aside impugned order. Disposition: Intra Court Appeal No.71740 of 2023 was allowed, and order dated 17.10.2023 retaining names of appellants on Passport Control List was set aside, with no order as to costs.

Summary: ICA in Crl. Org. 197/2023 Writ (SB), [ The State -VS-Mr. Irfan Nawaz Memon, District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, (I.C.T), Islamabad, etc ], [Crl Org in W.P. 2491/2023 Police/FIA Matter Detention (SB), [ Shehryar Afridi - VS -Federation of Pakistan etc ] -----Background: The appellant, serving as Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad, challenged an interlocutory order issued by a Single Judge-in-Chambers of the Islamabad High Court in contempt proceedings. The impugned order dated 20.02.2024 included non-bailable warrants for the appellant’s arrest and placement of his name on the Exit Control List (ECL). The contempt proceedings stemmed from allegations of violating prior court orders in a detention case. The appellant had sought exemption from personal appearance due to planned travel for Umrah, which was verbally communicated to the court but not formally recorded. -----Issues: 1- Whether the interlocutory order issued in contempt proceedings is appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. -----2- Whether the appellant's procedural and substantive rights were violated by the impugned order. -----3- Whether the appellant's failure to formally file an application for travel exemption impacts the maintainability of his Intra Court Appeal (ICA). -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Maintainability of ICA: The court held that only final orders in contempt proceedings, particularly those awarding punishment, are appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. Interlocutory or procedural orders, such as those directing arrest or placing a name on the ECL, do not qualify as appealable decisions. Precedents from both Pakistan and India were cited to support the principle that appeals in contempt proceedings are limited to final, determinative orders. --Procedural Irregularities by the Appellant: The appellant failed to disclose prior litigation, including a dismissed ICA and a Supreme Court petition. The court emphasized that a litigant must approach the court with clean hands and complete transparency. The appellant also failed to formally submit his application for exemption to the court office, relying instead on verbal communication during proceedings. This procedural lapse was deemed insufficient to challenge the impugned order. --Placement on ECL: The court observed that placing the appellant's name on the ECL was procedural in nature and would not prejudice him as long as contempt proceedings were ongoing and required his presence. The appellant's contention that his travel plans for Umrah justified exemption was undermined by the lack of a formal application. --Case Law and Precedents: The court referred to multiple precedents, including West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority v. Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission (PLD 1979 SC 912), to affirm that procedural and interlocutory orders in contempt proceedings are not appealable. The court also cited Indian judgments, such as Midnapore Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda (AIR 2006 SC 2190), which clarified that only orders punishing contempt are appealable. The Intra Court Appeal was dismissed in limine as not maintainable. The court held that the appellant was bound to comply with the procedural requirements of the contempt proceedings, including attendance and adherence to orders, and that the impugned order did not violate his rights. -----Citations/Precedents: West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority v. Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission (PLD 1979 SC 912) M.H. Khondkar v. The State (1971 SCMR 743) Adeel Arshad v. Ishfaq Ahmad Chaudhary (PLD 2021 Lah. 741) Muhammad Mohsin Rafiq v. Siddiqui & Co. (2021 CLC 1) Midnapore Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda (AIR 2006 SC 2190) B.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal (1988 3 SCC 26) Union of India v. Mario Cabrale Sa (AIR 1982 SC 691) Muhammad Shamim v. Mst. Nisar Fatima (2010 SCMR 18) Sayed Abbas Taqi Mehdi v. Mst. Sayeda Sabahat Batool (2010 SCMR 1840)

Summary: The petitioner has filed an instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking the removal of her name from the Passport Control List (PCL) / Exit Control List (ECL). The petitioner learned about her inclusion in the PCL through media reports and contends that the action is discriminatory, violating her constitutional rights. The respondents argue that the petitioner is involved in criminal cases, and placing her name on the PCL is necessary to ensure her presence for investigation and trial. The court refers to a similar case involving Faisal Maqbool Shaikh, where the court ordered the removal of his name from the PCL. The Islamabad Police's report mentions the petitioner's involvement in criminal cases, but the petitioner argues that she has obtained bail and is facing trial in accordance with the law. The petitioner challenges the lack of show cause notice and argues that the placement on the PCL violates her fundamental rights. The court examines the relevant Passport Rules, highlighting that the criteria for placement on the PCL include involvement in anti-state activities, which the petitioner denies. The court emphasizes that the Federal Government's approval is required for placing names on the PCL, and no such approval has been provided in this case. The petitioner asserts that the placement on the PCL infringes on her fundamental rights to due process, liberty, life, and freedom of movement. The court references various legal precedents emphasizing the importance of fair and reasonable exercise of discretionary powers, especially regarding the right to travel. The petitioner contends that she has not been involved in anti-state activities, and the lack of approval from the Federal Government makes her inclusion on the PCL unlawful. The court concludes that the petitioner's fundamental rights have been violated, and her name should be removed from the PCL. --- In the case of Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf through Attorney v. Pakistan through Secretary Interior and others (PLD 2014 Sindh 389), the court clarified that the mere registration of a criminal case does not automatically warrant the inclusion of the accused on the Exit Control List (E.C.L). The court emphasized that bail, once granted, falls within the jurisdiction of the court to regulate the custody of the accused. Additionally, it was pointed out that the law provides procedures to address situations where an accused is absconding. ---- In the case of Riaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan & others (PLD 2014 Islamabad 29), the court underscored the fundamental right to movement/travel guaranteed under the Constitution and international agreements. The authorities were reminded of their obligation to resolve public issues fairly and promptly, highlighting that depriving a citizen of fundamental rights without due process, especially when no trial has taken place, is a violation of those rights. --- In Mian Ayaz Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior & 3 others (PLD 2010 Lahore 230), the court emphasized that the right to travel is an integral part of human liberty and a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution. The judgment recognized the significance of international travel in modern life and considered it a right to life as well as a right to liberty. The court stressed that any restriction on these fundamental rights must be in accordance with law, satisfying both substantive and procedural due process. ---- The case of Wajid Shams-ul-Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior (PLD 1997 Lahore 617) affirmed that the right of a citizen to travel abroad is a fundamental right protected by various articles of the Constitution. The court asserted that the registration of a criminal case alone cannot justify curtailing a citizen's fundamental rights. --- In conclusion, the court, relying on established legal principles and precedents, declared the placement of the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List unjustified, illegal, and without lawful authority. The court directed the removal of the petitioner's name from the list within a specified time frame.

Summary: The National Accountability Bureau had initiated an inquiry into an unregistered entity called M/s Pslashuk, alleging its involvement in a ponzi scheme that cheated the public. Muhammad Taimur was arrested during the inquiry and sought bail, which was initially denied. Later, he filed a petition before the Accountability Court, seeking bail based on the delay in the trial, but it was also refused. The High Court, however, allowed the constitutional petition and granted bail with certain conditions, including surrendering his passport and the Cryptocurrency code, and placing his name on the exit control list. Muhammad Taimur's counsel argued that surrendering the Cryptocurrency code was an unreasonable condition that would deprive him of the benefit of bail. The Special Prosecutor of the Bureau contended that the condition was necessary to prevent tampering with the Cryptocurrency evidence. The Investigating Officer explained that the petitioner's phone containing the Cryptocurrency details was seized and in their custody, and there was a likelihood of tampering if the petitioner regained access to it. The court stated that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment, and if an accused is ultimately found innocent, there is no reparation for the unjustified incarceration. Granting bail subject to unreasonable conditions renders the concession ineffective. Bail is an important element of criminal law, premised on the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. When a court is satisfied that bail should be granted, it cannot be subject to conditions that render it ineffective. While conditions may be imposed to regulate the conduct of the accused, they must not be unreasonable, disproportionate, or excessive. In this case, the High Court granted bail to Muhammad Taimur but imposed the condition of surrendering the Cryptocurrency code. The court found this condition excessive and unreasonable, denying the petitioner the right to liberty granted by the High Court. It remanded the matter to the High Court to reconsider the condition and exercise its discretion to ensure the integrity of the Cryptocurrency while allowing the petitioner to avail the concession of bail. The High Court was advised to seek expert assistance in setting reasonable conditions. The court expected the proceedings to be completed within three weeks.

Summary: The petitioner and his wife, Farhat Anwar, who are overseas Pakistanis, faced issues related to blacklisting by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) upon their return to Pakistan. The petitioner argued that such blacklisting infringes upon their fundamental rights, particularly the right to travel, which is globally recognized. The court delves into the constitutional framework of fundamental rights in Pakistan, emphasizing the distinction between absolute and non-absolute rights, subject to reasonable restrictions. The judgment critically examines the legal basis for blacklisting individuals, noting that the Passports Act and its rules do not explicitly provide for such measures. The Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 is considered, but the court concludes that blacklisting, as regulated by the Passport and Visa Manual, goes beyond the legislative policy of the Passports Act and is, therefore, ultra vires. The court underscored the importance of ensuring that any restrictions on fundamental rights, such as the right to travel, must be reasonable and in the public interest. It reviews the procedures for maintaining blacklists, emphasizing the need for adherence to the law and avoidance of arbitrary actions. In the first case, the petitioner's name was erroneously placed on the blacklist, and the court finds that the circumstances did not warrant such action. In the second case, the petitioner's blacklisting was based on being a proclaimed offender, but the court holds that this alone cannot justify restricting the right to travel without due consideration. Ultimately, the court declared the blacklisting of both petitioners as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497(1), first proviso---Bail after arrest---Female accused---Scope---Petitioner, being a woman, sought bail after arrest---High Court, while dismissing bail application, failed to adequately deal with prosecution case and pleas raised by petitioner---Supreme Court held that without touching the merits of the case, a woman accused is entitled to the concession of bail under the first proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C., unless exceptional circumstances exist to deny such relief---Prosecution failed to point out any circumstance justifying refusal of bail---Held, petitioner was entitled to bail as a matter of statutory concession---Bail granted subject to conditions. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Bail---Withdrawal of concession---Misuse of liberty---Held, concession of bail is not absolute and may be withdrawn if the accused misuses the same, including causing delay in expeditious conclusion of trial or influencing prosecution witnesses. (c) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 10A---Fair trial and due process---Right to defence---High Court had directed trial to be concluded expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from framing of charge---Petitioner contended that such direction deprived her of fair opportunity to lead defence---Held, such apprehension was conjectural and without factual basis---However, it was reaffirmed that accused has a constitutional right to present defence and Trial Court is duty-bound to consider and decide defence pleas in accordance with law as envisaged under Art.10A of the Constitution. (d) Criminal Petition---Non-prosecution ----Bail petition not pressed---Held, where learned counsel for petitioner does not press the petition after arguing the matter, the same is liable to be dismissed as not pressed. Disposition: Criminal Petition No.1109 of 2021 dismissed as not pressed; Criminal Petition No.1110 of 2021 converted into appeal and allowed; bail granted to petitioner Asmat Zakir Jaffer subject to furnishing bail bonds, retention of name on Exit Control List (ECL), and observance of conditions imposed by the Trial Court; directions of High Court otherwise maintained.

Summary: Fundamental right to movement elaborated under Article 15 of the Constitution with reference to placement of name on Exit Control List. Mere relationship with accused is not a valid ground to curb the right to movement-----The petitioners are relatives of the CEO of a brokerage firm accused of embezzlement. The CEO's alleged misappropriation led to the petitioners' names being added to the ECL based on claims of holding properties linked to the CEO's actions. The petitioners argued that their association with the CEO did not justify ECL placement. They contended that the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) lacked jurisdiction to recommend such action. The respondents relied on SECP recommendations, alleging the petitioners' active involvement in trading shares and holding properties on behalf of the CEO. The court found ECL placement without notice or hearing unconstitutional. It emphasized the separate legal entity of the brokerage firm and criticized the lack of substantive reasons for ECL placement. The judgment cites international conventions and legal precedents to support the right to freedom of movement. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/O Interior v. General (R) Pervez Musharraf and others, PLD 2016 SC 570: Recognized the right to movement as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958): United States Supreme Court upheld the right to travel as part of personal liberty under the Fifth Amendment.Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869): Recognized the right of citizens to move freely within states as a fundamental right, Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas 546 (1823): Declared citizens' rights to move freely within states as fundamental privileges and immunities, Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 13 asserts the right to freedom of movement within and between countries. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the ECL placement as unconstitutional and illegal. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of the right to freedom of movement and emphasized the need for substantive justifications for restricting this right.

Summary: he petitioner challenged the placement of his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The court considered the petitioner's claim of being victimized due to political rivalry, emphasizing his release on bail in a previous case.The respondents, representing NAB, defended the ECL placement, asserting that it was done following due process and with sufficient reasons. They argued that the petitioner could seek a remedy through the review process instead of filing a constitutional petition.The court addressed the preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition, citing previous judgments and emphasizing the importance of protecting citizens' fundamental rights. It stated that the availability of a review remedy under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 does not bar the court from exercising constitutional jurisdiction.The judgment analyzed the grounds for placing a person on the ECL, as specified in the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010. It concluded that the impugned memorandum against Shahbaz Sharif was issued under Rule-2(1)(a) and (b) of the Rules, 2010.The court highlighted the constitutional right to freedom of movement, subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. It referred to previous judgments affirming that actions must be lawful, just, and not based on mala fide intentions or extraneous considerations.In this case, the court found that the petitioner's name was placed on the ECL without sufficient reasons, suggesting it was done hastily on NAB's instructions. It rejected the argument that the ongoing NAB inquiry alone justified restricting the petitioner's right to travel.Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order placing Shahbaz Sharif on the ECL, and directed the respondents to remove his name from the list promptly. The judgment emphasized the need for the Federal Government to exercise its powers judiciously and fairly, considering the fundamental rights of the citizens.