Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---Art. 15, 199, and Rule 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021 Right to freedom of movement—Placement of citizen’s name on Passport Control List (PCL)—Legality—Due process—Requirement of Federal Government’s approval The Petitioner challenged the placement of his name on the Passport Control List (PCL) under Article 199 of the Constitution, contending that the restriction was arbitrary, unlawful, and a violation of his fundamental rights. The Petitioner was accused in FIR No. 96/23 under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. However, his pre-arrest bail petition was withdrawn after the investigating officer found him not guilty. Despite this, his name remained on the PCL based on the recommendation of the Home Department, Punjab, without any prior notice or opportunity for a hearing. Rule 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021, requires approval from the Federal Government for placing an individual on the PCL, which was absent in the present case. The court held that such a restriction, in the absence of lawful authority and procedural fairness, violated Article 15 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to free movement subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. Therefore, the placement of the Petitioner’s name on the PCL was declared illegal, unconstitutional, and of no legal effect. Cited Cases: Dr. Joseph Wilson v. Federation of Pakistan 2017 PCrLJ 1569 Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan 2024 MLD 1020 Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan 2024 YLR 2616 Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2016 SC 808 Farah Mazhar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2022 Lahore 119 ----- Disposition: Writ petition allowed—Respondents directed to remove Petitioner’s name from PCL, as its inclusion was found to be unjustified, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights.

Summary: Background:The case concerns an intra-court appeal filed by Faraz Iqbal Jamil and another against the Federation of Pakistan and four others. The appeal challenged an order dated October 17, 2023, which denied the appellants' request to remove their names from the Passport Control List (PCL). The initial petition for the removal was declined despite a directive from the Constitution Petition No. 45436 of 2023, which had instructed the Secretary Ministry of Interior to decide the matter fairly within 15 days.---Issues:The primary issue in this appeal was whether the names of the appellants should be retained on the Passport Control List, which restricts their ability to travel outside Pakistan. The retention was based on an ongoing investigation linked to criminal activities allegedly involving their mother, yet the appellants themselves were not accused in the related FIR.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad of the Lahore High Court heard the appeal. The court found that:The appellants were not directly accused in the FIR that implicated their mother and others in corruption-related offenses.The legal framework governing the Passport Control List allows for the addition of individuals involved in anti-state activities or those whose travel might harm state interests. There was no assertion that the appellants engaged in such activities.Previous case law establishes that the mere registration of a criminal case or an ongoing investigation, particularly one not involving the person directly, is insufficient grounds for restricting constitutional liberties, including the freedom to travel.It had been nearly a year since the FIR's filing, and no substantive progress had been made in the investigation that justified the continued restriction on the appellants' travel rights.Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the maintenance of the appellants' names on the PCL was unjustified and disproportionate, given the absence of direct allegations against them and the lack of progress in the investigation. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous order that upheld the retention of their names on the PCL, and emphasized the need for state actions that restrict individual liberties to be justified, proportionate, and timely.---Citations/Precedents:The Federal Government through Secretary Interior, Government of Pakistan vs. Ms. Ayyan Ali and others (2017 SCMR 1179), which discusses the conditions under which individual liberties may be curtailed based on criminal charges.Sheikh Shan Ilahi vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 6 others (PLD 2023 Lahore 359), which elaborates on the constitutional rights related to travel.Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs. Federation of Pakistan and 4 others (2019 P Cr. L J 1123), which highlights the insufficiency of ongoing investigations alone as grounds for placing restrictions on an individual's travel.

Summary: BackgroundMst. Sharafat Bibi filed a writ petition against the Ministry of Interior, Islamabad, after discovering that a Pakistani Origin (POR) Card had been mistakenly recorded in her name in the NADRA database. This issue came to light when she applied for a Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC). Her petition sought the cancellation of the POR card under the policies stipulated in a 2017 policy letter and requested the opportunity to present her case before a verification committee for clearance.-----Issues:Whether Mst. Sharafat Bibi, who claims to be a Pakistani citizen by birth and lineage, is entitled to have the POR card cancelled and her Pakistani citizenship affirmed.Whether the existing policy framework adequately addresses the cancellation of erroneously issued POR cards and allows for the proper reissuance of CNICs to affected individuals.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court recognized the petitioner's claim of being a Pakistani citizen by birth and acknowledged that the POR card was mistakenly issued. It highlighted a policy gap where Pakistani citizens could be erroneously registered as Afghan nationals due to administrative errors. The court directed:The petitioner should be allowed to present her case before the competent NADRA forum.NADRA to consider her application for cancellation of the POR card and subsequent issuance of a CNIC, ensuring proper verification and adherence to policies.The need for policy amendments to prevent similar issues and ensure that citizens can correct their nationality status in NADRA's database effectively.-----Citations/Precedents:NADRA Ordinance 2000: Guides the issuance and management of national identity cards and documents.Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951: Defines the legal framework for Pakistani citizenship and outlines the conditions under which citizenship may be renounced or confirmed.Additional ReferencesThe judgment references administrative practices and policies related to the registration of nationals and foreigners, emphasizing the need for accurate record-keeping and the provision of remedies when errors occur.It discusses the legal implications of erroneously issued identity documents and the administrative burdens placed on individuals to correct these mistakes.---Quotation: ''A Pakistani citizen cannot be compelled to apply for grant of Naturalization Certificate if an Afghan Citizenship Card is earlier issued in his name. Same may be cancelled by the NADRA itself.''

Summary: In a case of first instance, an international custody order under the Hague Convention was enforced in Pakistan and the mother was ordered to return the child to US as that was in the child's best interest ---- Issues:1) Whether the wrongful retention of the child by Respondent No.1 justifies the enforcement of the US custody order under the Hague Convention in Pakistan. ---- 2)Whether the child's welfare is best served by being returned to the petitioner father, aligning with both international conventions and Pakistani family law. ---- Holding:The court directed the respondent mother to transfer custody of the minor to the petitioner father, facilitating the child's repatriation to the United States. This decision is in line with the Hague Convention and previous court orders, marking a landmark enforcement of an international family judgment in Pakistan.ReasoningThe court's deliberation focused on:The paramountcy of the child's welfare, in line with the UNCRC principles, which advocate for a nurturing upbringing.Evaluations by the Council for Children?s Rights and US court, which favored the petitioner's ability to provide a superior environment for the child.Legal obligations under the Hague Convention and Pakistani statutes, particularly the incorporation of the Hague Convention into the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, to address international child abduction.Precedents from Pakistani and international jurisdictions, advocating for the child's return to their habitual residence to resolve custody disputes, with this case setting a novel precedent in Pakistan for the enforcement of international family judgments.Citations and Precedents Relied UponHague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980UNCRC, 1989Key Pakistani and international cases, such as PLD 2007 Lahore 293 (Ms. LOUISE ANNE FAIRLEY v. SAJJAD AHMED RANA) and 2019 CLC 1311, which underscore the significance of the child's habitual residence and well-being in custody conflicts. --- The incorporation of the Hague Convention into the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, to address international child abduction is a significant legal development that bridges international law and Pakistani family law, particularly in the context of cross-border child custody disputes. This section will delve into the legal obligations under the Hague Convention, its integration into Pakistani law, and the implications of such incorporation.The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child AbductionThe Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980, is an international treaty aimed at securing the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any contracting state. The Convention seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of abduction and retention across international boundaries by providing a procedure to bring about their prompt return.Key Provisions of the Hague Convention:Article 3: Defines the wrongful removal or retention of a child as a breach of custody rights under the law of the child's habitual residence.Article 12: Stipulates that a child should be promptly returned to their habitual residence unless a year has passed and the child has settled into their new environment.Article 13: Provides exceptions to the return, including if there is a grave risk that the return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm.Incorporation into Pakistani StatutesPakistan's accession to the Hague Convention and its subsequent incorporation into domestic law, specifically the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, represents a commitment to aligning with international legal standards regarding child abduction. This incorporation allows for the Hague Convention's provisions to be applied within Pakistani legal proceedings, enabling Pakistani courts to handle cases of international child abduction more effectively.Implications of Incorporation:Jurisdiction of Family Courts: By including the Hague Convention within the scope of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, Pakistan has granted its family courts the jurisdiction to hear cases related to international child abduction. This means that such matters can be adjudicated within the family court system, providing a clear legal pathway for the resolution of cross-border custody disputes.Enforcement of International Custody Orders: The incorporation enables Pakistani courts to recognize and enforce custody orders made by courts in other Hague Convention signatory countries, provided that such enforcement is in line with the Convention's principles and respects the child's welfare.Legal Recourse for Abducted Children: Parents or guardians seeking the return of a child abducted to Pakistan from another Hague Convention country now have a legal framework to pursue their case within the Pakistani legal system. This framework ensures that the child's return is handled expeditiously and in accordance with international standards.Balancing International Obligations with Domestic Law: The integration of the Hague Convention into Pakistani law represents a balance between respecting international legal obligations and the domestic legal framework, particularly in light of Pakistan's cultural, religious, and social norms. It allows Pakistan to fulfill its international commitments while providing flexibility to consider the local context in custody disputes.

Summary: Bail denied----Background: The petitioner, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 354/2023, registered at Police Station FIA, Gujranwala, for offenses under section 18 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, section 6 of the Passport Act, 1974, and sections 34/109 PPC. The case arose from a raid conducted by the Federal Investigating Agency (FIA) on a house in Gujranwala, where the petitioner was allegedly found with counterfeit travel documents and equipment used for human trafficking. ----Issues: 1- Whether the FIA conducted the raid lawfully, without a search and seizure warrant. 2- Whether the involvement of local inhabitants was necessary during the raid. 3- Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated and the actual culprits were released. 4- Whether the offenses under section 18 of the Emigration Ordinance and section 6 of the Passport Act were applicable to the facts of the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Lawfulness of the Raid: The court acknowledged that the raid was conducted based on urgent source information at 3:30 a.m. when no court was available to issue a search warrant. The urgency of the situation justified the procedural irregularities or illegalities in the process. The court held that unless the petitioner could demonstrate during the trial that the actions caused him serious prejudice, the raid would not be invalidated. ---Involvement of Local Inhabitants: The petitioner argued that the FIA violated section 103 Cr.P.C. by not involving local inhabitants in the raid. The court noted that police witnesses are as credible as any other witness unless they have animosity towards the accused. The petitioner was advised to show cause at the trial why the proceedings could not be relied upon. ---False Implication: The petitioner claimed innocence, stating he was not arrested at the scene and was made a scapegoat. The prosecution maintained that the petitioner was caught red-handed. The court found that prima facie, the evidence satisfied the ingredients of the offenses under the Emigration Ordinance and the Passport Act. ---Applicability of Offenses: The court determined that section 18 of the Emigration Ordinance, which falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., was applicable given the nature of the crime. Additionally, the petitioner had a previous conviction under the same section, indicating a repeat offense. The court dismissed the bail application, citing that the petitioner failed to make a case for bail and the offenses charged were substantiated by the evidence presented. The petitioner was remanded to custody pending trial. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Azam v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 67) Muhammad Hanif v. The State (2003 SCMR 1237) Riaz Ahmad alias Raju v. The State (2004 SCMR 988) Naseer Ahmad v. The State (2004 SCMR 1361) Zafar v. The State (2008 SCMR 1254) Najib Rahim v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2017 Sindh 53) Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 2022 SC 119) Fida Jan v. The State (2001 SCMR 36) State through A.-G, Sindh, Karachi v. Hemjoo (2003 SCMR 881) Arshad Mahmood v. The State (PLD 2008 SC 376) Syed Zulfiqar Shah v. The State (2022 SCMR 1450)

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: BackgroundIn the case of Masooma and another v. Federal Government through Ministry of Interior Pak Secretariat and another (PLD 2024 Balochistan 33), the petitioners, Masooma and another individual, both of Afghan descent and born in Pakistan, sought directions for the issuance of Computerized National Identity Cards (CNIC). They had married Pakistani citizens and fulfilled all legal requirements for obtaining CNICs, but their applications were denied due to the absence of a Certificate of Domicile from the Federal Government.---IssuesThe core issue addressed in this case was whether the petitioners were entitled to obtain CNICs. The legal examination centered on the interpretation and application of Sections 10(2) and 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, in conjunction with Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The case involved questions about the rights of individuals born in Pakistan to Afghan parents and the procedural requirements for such individuals to acquire Pakistani citizenship through marriage.---Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeThe High Court determined that while the petitioners were potentially eligible for Pakistani citizenship due to their birth in Pakistan and marriage to Pakistani nationals, they needed to formally obtain a Certificate of Domicile as required under Section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. The court acknowledged the hardship faced by the petitioners due to the non-issuance of CNICs but affirmed that the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) lacked the jurisdiction to issue CNICs without the requisite Certificate of Domicile. The petitions were disposed of with a directive that the petitioners should approach the Federal Government to obtain the necessary Certificate of Domicile in the prescribed manner.---Citations/PrecedentsPakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 (Sections 10(2) and 17)Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000Suo Motu case No.1/K of 2006 (PLD 2008 Federal Shariat Court) - This case was referenced regarding the discriminatory nature of certain provisions in the Citizenship Act, deemed in violation of constitutional and international norms regarding gender equality.

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: The petition revolved around the issue of seniority between different groups within the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The petitioner was part of the Investigation group, while the said respondents were part of the Immigration wing. The petitioner argued that these two groups should be separate due to their distinct roles and challenged the combined seniority list that treated them as one. The case had gone through several stages, including a previous appeal and a remand order from a three-member bench of the Supreme Court.Justice Qazi Faez Isa, in delivering the judgment, reviewed the history of the case and considered the arguments presented by both sides. The Court also examined the relevant rules and regulations governing the FIA's group classification. The Court noted that rule 12 of the Federal Investigation Agency (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1975 outlined different groups within the FIA, including the Investigation group and the Immigration wing, but the power to modify these groups rested with the Federal Government. Despite recommendations and actions by FIA committees, the Federal Government had not formally created a separate Immigration group.The Court addressed arguments based on discrimination, emphasizing Article 25(2) of the Constitution, which prohibited discrimination based on sex. The respondents contended that excluding female officers from the Investigation group would violate this constitutional right. However, the Court found that the power to create separate groups under rule 12 was vested in the Federal Government, and no such group had been established. The Court also referred to previous decisions and concluded that the seniority list adhered to the relevant rules.In conclusion, the Court rejected the petition for leave to appeal and dismissed the case, upholding the previous judgments and decisions related to the combined seniority list and the classification of groups within the FIA.