Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 9 & 199 Right to identity and due process––Blocking of CNIC––Jurisdiction of NADRA––Scope and limitations––Petitioner’s CNIC was digitally impounded based on a letter from intelligence agencies alleging fraud in acquisition of citizenship––Held, NADRA has no authority under the Constitution or National Database & Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 to determine or revoke citizenship of a person once registered––Such action, absent prior adjudication by the Competent Authority under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, was unlawful––Citizenship is a fundamental right, and arbitrary deprivation thereof infringes the right to dignity and life protected under Art.9 of the Constitution––Due process must be strictly followed before impounding identity documents––Intelligence agencies cannot unilaterally determine or recommend cancellation of citizenship; they may only submit material to the Federal Government, which is the competent authority to adjudicate such matters––Petition was partly allowed with direction to NADRA to restore CNIC until lawful adjudication by competent forum. Cited Cases: • Fatima v. National Database and Registration Authority PLD 2022 Balochistan 73 • Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2021 Islamabad 305 • Abdul Qadir v. Federation of Pakistan 2024 MLD 1774 • Hafiz Awais Zafar v. Judge Family Court, Lahore PLD 2022 Lahore 756 (b) National Database & Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000: ----S. 18(2)(a)––Scope––Cancellation or impounding of CNIC––Jurisdictional bar––Held, NADRA may impound a CNIC only in cases involving tampering, forgery, or duplication, or where the CNIC was obtained by impersonation, provided that eligibility is not based on citizenship determination––Where CNIC was issued after due process, NADRA must not act on mere suspicion or unverified reports to impound the card––Power to adjudicate questions of citizenship vests solely in the Federal Government under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951––NADRA's reference of such matters to “Verification Boards” or “District Committees” was declared ultra vires––NADRA may only act after final adjudication by the competent authority––Petition was partly allowed and CNIC ordered to be restored temporarily. (c) Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 & Citizenship Rules, 1952: ----S. 16 & Citizenship Rules––Determination of citizenship––Exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government––Intelligence agency reports––Status––Held, the Federal Government is the sole competent authority to determine or revoke citizenship status––Intelligence agencies can report alleged fraud or concealment but cannot adjudicate or cause blocking of CNIC––Reports must be submitted to relevant Ministry, which may refer the case for adjudication––Right of citizenship cannot be revoked except by following the specific process under the Act and its Rules––Appeal under NADRA Ordinance does not substitute due process under the Citizenship Act––Restoration of CNIC directed pending lawful determination. ----Cited Cases: • Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2021 Islamabad 305 • Abdul Qadir v. Federation of Pakistan 2024 MLD 1774 ----Disposition: Petition partly allowed––NADRA directed to temporarily restore Petitioner’s CNIC pending final determination by the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act––Petitioner directed to cooperate and produce requisite documents––Respondents instructed to follow due process and ensure protection of fundamental rights.

Summary: Blocking CNIC ---- (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 9, 10-A, 15, 25 – Right to identity – Blockage of CNIC – Access to justice – Proclaimed offender stranded abroad – Constitutional safeguards – Scope The petitioner sought directions for unblocking the CNIC of his brother, Muhammad Luqman, who was declared a proclaimed offender in FIR No. 950/2023 under S. 489-F PPC. Luqman, currently in Dubai, was unable to renew his expired passport due to NADRA’s digital impoundment of his CNIC, issued in compliance with an order of the Magistrate. Petitioner contended that a compromise had been effected with the complainant, and Luqman now intends to return and surrender before the court, but his return is obstructed by the CNIC blockage. Held, the right to identity is fundamental and its arbitrary restriction violates the individual’s right to liberty, access to justice, and freedom of movement under Articles 9, 10-A, 15, and 25 of the Constitution. A valid compromise deed was on record, evidencing amicable settlement between parties. Since the accused wished to return and join trial, continuation of CNIC blockage served no lawful purpose and impeded due process. Respondents were directed to forthwith unblock the CNIC to facilitate passport renewal and return to Pakistan. Cited as precedent: PLD 2022 Lahore 756 PLD 2022 Balochistan 73 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Disposition: Petition allowed; NADRA directed to unblock CNIC of Muhammad Luqman.

Summary: (a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 ----S. 18 & S. 47; MoI Notification dated 19-04-2017 (blocked-CNIC SOPs)—Cancellation/impounding power—“Reason to believe”—Scope---CNIC previously issued to petitioner No.1 and MNICs/CNICs issued to her husband and father-in-law established a continuous chain of identity; passport also issued on the basis of CNIC—In absence of any allegation or proof under S. 18(2)(a)–(d) (ineligibility, multiple cards on same eligibility, obliteration/tampering, or forgery), NADRA could not refuse issuance of corrected CNIC or renewal—Pre-1978 documentary requirements in MoI SOPs (land record, domicile, pedigree, employment certificate, educational certificates, passport, arms/driving licence, MNIC etc.) may apply to blocked-CNIC cases, but were inapplicable where CNICs had already been lawfully issued and no S. 18 basis was invoked or established—“Reason to believe” must rest on tangible evidence; mere insistence on SOP formalities cannot defeat extant statutory protections. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Mandamus—Where Zonal Board recommended and respondent No.3 approved correction of date of birth, NADRA’s subsequent delay/refusal to issue corrected CNIC and to renew petitioner No.2’s CNIC was unjustified—Writ jurisdiction competently invoked to enforce performance of a legal duty arising under the Ordinance, 2000 and the approval already granted. (c) Administrative law—Presumption of regularity; burden on authority ----Prior issuance of CNICs/MNIC and passport carries presumption that statutory requirements were observed; unless rebutted through the S. 18 process (notice and proof within clauses (a)–(d)), NADRA must honour existing entitlements and approvals—No adverse presumption lies against the citizen where the department’s own records support identity and eligibility. Disposition --- Petition allowed. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 directed to issue corrected CNIC to petitioner No.1 (as already approved) and to renew petitioner No.2’s CNIC without delay. Copy to DG NADRA, Balochistan, for compliance.

Summary: (a) Service Law—Regularization of Contract Employees: ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199; NADRA Regularization Policy, 2012 Regularization of contractual employees—Applicability of policy—Discriminatory treatment—Principle of equality under Article 25. The respondent, a contract employee of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) appointed under the disabled persons quota, was denied regularization solely because his service tenure fell three days short of the required one-year period stipulated under the NADRA Regularization Policy, 2012. The Supreme Court held that once a policy decision for regularization had been taken, it must be applied uniformly without arbitrary exclusions. The Court noted that other employees who similarly fell short of the one-year requirement had been regularized pursuant to previous High Court judgments, which had attained finality. Denial of regularization solely due to a minor shortfall in tenure violated Article 25 of the Constitution, which mandates equal protection of the law. The Court emphasized that a public authority cannot apply its policies in a discriminatory manner when similarly placed employees have been granted relief. (b) Constitutional Jurisdiction—Maintainability of Writ Petitions by Contract Employees: ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199; Chairman NADRA, Islamabad v. Muhammad Ali Shah (2017 SCMR 1979) Contractual employees—Scope of judicial review—Invocation of writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court distinguished the case from Chairman NADRA, Islamabad v. Muhammad Ali Shah (2017 SCMR 1979), clarifying that the respondent was not challenging the terms of the NADRA policy but rather seeking its enforcement. The High Court had correctly assumed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, as the petitioner was invoking NADRA’s own policy decision for regularization, rather than asserting an independent right to regularization. The Court reaffirmed that contractual employees ordinarily do not have a vested right to regularization, but where a department’s own policy grants such rights, the denial of regularization can be judicially reviewed to prevent arbitrary action. (c) Rights of Disabled Persons—Employment Protections: ----Disabled Persons (Employment & Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981, S. 2(c), (d); United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006; Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 3, 25 & 38 Employment protections for disabled persons—State’s obligation—Principle of non-discrimination. The Court emphasized that disabled persons require special consideration in employment decisions, particularly where a regularization policy exists. The denial of regularization solely due to a minor technicality, despite the respondent’s satisfactory performance over an extended period, amounted to unfair treatment. The Court referred to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006, which prohibits discrimination in employment and mandates inclusive and accessible work environments. The judgment also cited national legislation, including the Disabled Persons (Employment & Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981, emphasizing the need for fair treatment and employment security for disabled persons. The Court stressed that public functionaries must act in good faith and avoid arbitrary exclusions in matters of employment rights for disabled individuals. (d) Rule of Consistency and Non-Discrimination in Public Employment: ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 4 & 25; NWFP Public Service Commission v. Muhammad Arif (2011 SCMR 848); Fida Hussain v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 46) Principle of equal treatment—Rule of consistency—Protection against arbitrary employment decisions. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule of consistency, holding that similarly placed employees cannot be treated differently without a valid justification. The Court observed that several other employees with less than one year of service had been regularized pursuant to earlier judgments, while the respondent was denied the same relief. Arbitrary application of policy amounts to discrimination, which is impermissible under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that public employment decisions must be fair, non-discriminatory, and in accordance with constitutional guarantees. (e) Procedural Objections—Non-Filing of Intra Court Appeal (ICA): ----Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, S. 3; Federal Board of Revenue v. Messrs. Hub Power Company Ltd. (PLD 2023 SC 207); Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Iqbal Nasir (PLD 2011 SC 132) Filing of an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) as a procedural requirement—Effect of bypassing ICA. The petitioners challenged the maintainability of the High Court’s decision on the ground that NADRA had not filed an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) before directly approaching the Supreme Court. The Court held that while filing an ICA is a rule of practice, it does not oust or abridge the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, particularly when the case had been pending since 2021 and was heard on merits. The Court noted that while an ICA is generally preferred, failure to file one does not necessarily render a petition non-maintainable, especially in exceptional circumstances. ----Disposition: The Supreme Court dismissed the civil petition, finding no illegality or perversity in the High Court’s judgment. Leave to appeal was refused, and NADRA was directed to regularize the respondent’s employment in accordance with its policy.

Summary: (a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000)--- ----S. 18---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI---Computerized National Identity Card, blocking of---Jurisdiction of Executing Court---Scope---Executing Court had issued orders for blocking CNIC of the petitioner, who had approached High Court without approaching the Executing Court for unblocking of his CNIC---Order of Executing Court was not without authority in view of O.XXI, C.P.C.---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. PLD 2022 Lah. 756 Distinguished. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 5 & 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Conduct of the petitioner, considering of---Non-appearance before the Executing Court---Effect---Blocking of CNIC---Validity---High Court while entertaining writ petition may also take into consideration conduct of the petitioner---Petitioner was avoiding his appearance before the Executing Court, which was his inviolable obligation under Art. 5 of the Constitution, thus, his approach before the High Court by filing writ petition could not be accepted to be in good faith---Petitioner failed to make out a case for interference of High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional Petition was dismissed in limine. Muhammad Arif v. Uzma Afzal and others 2011 SCMR 374; Dr. Azim Ur Rehman Khan MEO v. Government of Sindh and another 2004 SCMR 1299 and Aziz ur Rehman Ch v. M. Nasiruddin and others PLD 1965 SC 236 rel. Malik Anwar Ul Haq for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th November, 2024.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Citizenship ----Right to nationality—Issuance of CNICs—Fundamental rights— Citizenship is a foundational right, enabling individuals to enjoy civil and political protections guaranteed under the Constitution—Arbitrary deprivation of nationality or denial of CNICs contravenes Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other international conventions—State cannot adopt practices that risk statelessness, and must act in accordance with due process and safeguards enshrined in law. (b) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 ----S. 47 & NADRA Notification dated 19.04.2017 (as amended 03.01.2018)—Issuance of CNICs—Proof of Pakistani citizenship— Under the notification, NADRA is bound to issue CNICs to applicants who produce pre-1979 verified government documents such as land records, domicile, pedigree tables, or other state-issued certificates—Petitioners established their ancestral ownership through documentary evidence including revenue records and inheritance mutations dating back to 1965-66—Their entitlement to CNICs was fully supported by law. (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 115—Civil revision—Concurrent findings reversed by appellate court—Interference justified— Trial Court decreed suit for issuance of CNICs based on robust oral and documentary evidence—Appellate Court misread evidence and failed to consider applicability of statutory NADRA Notification—High Court exercised revisional jurisdiction to restore trial court’s decree, holding appellate judgment as unsustainable in law. **(d) Evidence—Documentary proof—Pre-1979 land records and pedigree table— Petitioners produced Khewat, Khatooni, Misl-e-Haqiat, mutation entries, and verified pedigree (Shajra-e-Nasab) to show lineage from Pakistani citizens recorded before 1979—Also supported claim through NADRA verification tokens and applications—Held, such evidence fulfilled statutory criteria for CNIC issuance. **(e) Administrative Law—Failure to provide remedy despite direction— Petitioners had earlier been directed to avail NADRA’s internal remedy, which they duly pursued—NADRA failed to act upon their applications despite tokens and supporting documentation—Such conduct amounts to violation of legitimate expectations and necessitated judicial intervention. Disposition: Revision allowed—Judgment of appellate court dated 22.02.2023 set aside—Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 08.11.2022 restored—Petitioners declared bona fide Pakistani citizens entitled to CNICs under NADRA Notification and Section 47 of Ordinance, 2000.

Summary: Background: This case involves a civil revision filed by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) against a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozewala. The Respondents had previously filed a suit seeking a declaration to restore their Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) and Passports, which NADRA had blocked. The suit was initially dismissed by the Civil Judge but later decreed in favor of the Respondents by the Appellate Court. The case raises significant questions about the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters relating to citizenship and the issuance of identity documents. ----Issues: 1- Whether the sovereign right of the State to confer nationality upon an individual can be subject to a civil suit or must be decided under special laws relating to citizenship. 2- Whether the grant or denial of identity documents (CNIC & Passport) based on nationality or alien status can be subject to a civil suit or falls within the purview of special laws. 3- Whether a civil suit is maintainable without impleading the Federal Government as a necessary party. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Sovereign Right and Special Laws: The court held that the sovereign right of the State to confer or deny citizenship is regulated by special laws such as the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, and the Passports Act, 1974. These laws provide comprehensive mechanisms and remedies for addressing disputes regarding citizenship and identity documents. Therefore, such matters should be resolved through the procedures established by these special laws rather than through civil suits. Grant or Denial of Identity Documents: The court determined that the issuance and revocation of CNICs and Passports fall within the jurisdiction of NADRA and the relevant government authorities as stipulated in the NADRA Ordinance and the Passports Act. Civil suits cannot override the specific procedures and remedies provided under these laws. Necessary Party: The court emphasized that the Federal Government must be impleaded in cases involving questions of citizenship and identity documents. The failure to include the Federal Government as a necessary party rendered the suit procedurally defective. The court allowed the civil revision, setting aside the judgment of the Appellate Court. The suit was deemed not maintainable due to the availability of alternate remedies under the special laws and the failure to implead the Federal Government. The Respondent was granted the liberty to avail these remedies within 30 days from the date of the judgment. ----Citations/Precedents: West Punjab Government versus Pindi-Jhelum Valley Transport Ltd., Rawalpindi and six others (PLD 1953 Lahore 339) Muhammad Siddique (Deceased) through LRs and Others versus Mst. Noor Bibi (Deceased) through LRs and Others (2020 SCMR 483) Najeebullah and others versus Director NADRA, Balochistan, Quetta and others (PLD 2016 Balochistan 1) Gul Shereen Bibi versus Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior and 5 others (2016 CLC 1928) Saeed Abdi Mahmud versus National Database Registration Authority through Chairman and 03 others (2018 CLC 1588) Ghulam Sanai versus The Assistant Director, National Registration Office, Peshawar and another (PLD 1999 Peshawar 18) Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others (PLD 2021 Islamabad 305) Mst. Rukhsana Bibi and others versus Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 2016 Lahore 857) Nasrullah Khan and another versus Mst. Khairunnisa and others (2020 SCMR 2101) Government of Balochistan, CWPP&H Department and others versus Nawabzada Mir Tariq Hussain Khan Magsi and others (2010 SCMR 115) ----Quote: Declatory suit instituted by the Respondent for unblocking of his CNIC directly before the Civil Court without exhausting remedies provided under the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 was not maintainable.

Summary: Background: The plaintiff/appellant filed a declaratory suit against the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) and the public at large, seeking correction of her date of birth on her identity card. The plaintiff claimed her date of birth as per school records is May 5, 1986, while NADRA incorrectly recorded it as April 14, 1983. The plaintiff argued that the date of birth of her elder brother is April 7, 1983, making a seven-day gap between their births unnatural and incorrect. ----Issues: 1- Whether the date of birth on the plaintiff's identity card should be corrected as per her school records. 2- Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and whether there was a cause of action. 3- Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The trial court and the Additional District Judge dismissed the suit, ruling it was barred by time, lacked cause of action, and was unsupported by sufficient evidence. The High Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, presided by Justice Syed Shahid Bahar, accepted the revision petition, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts. The National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) Ordinance, 2000 and its associated regulations, specifically Rule 11(e) of NADRA (Application for National Identity Card) Regulations, 2002, allow applications for changes to identity cards at any time. Thus, the suit is not time-barred. Section 48 of the NADRA Ordinance provides that its provisions have overriding effect over other laws. The petitioner provided verification from the Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School Kai Dharra, Serari, confirming her date of birth as May 5, 1986. The High Court found that the lower courts failed to consider this evidence adequately and applied an incorrect legal standard. The High Court emphasized that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC allows it to correct erroneous applications of law and misconceived findings by lower courts. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on incorrect assumptions and did not consider material evidence, justifying the High Court's intervention. ----Citations/Precedents: Imran Khan vs. Federation of Pakistan [2016 YLR 323]: No provision in NADRA Ordinance prohibits correction of mistakes in CNIC. Abdul Sattar vs. Anab Bibi [PLD 2007 SC 609]: Revisional jurisdiction applicable in case of erroneous legal assumptions and non-consideration of evidence. Major Rasheed Beg vs. Rehmat Ullah [PLD 2001 SC 443] Karamat Hussain vs. Muhammad Zaman [PLD 1987 SC 139] Saheb Khan vs. Muhammad Pannah [PLD 1994 SC 162] Mohammad Bakhsh vs. Province of Punjab [1994 SCMR 1836]

Summary: ''Banking court did not have the power to block CNIC'' ----- Issues:Whether the issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest and the blocking of CNICs were legally justified under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.Whether due process, including inquiry and show cause notice, was followed before taking such actions against the appellants.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court found the issuance of non-bailable arrest warrants and the blocking of CNICs to be illegal due to a lack of procedural compliance with the required legal standards. The court noted that no inquiry or show cause notice was issued prior to these actions, which was deemed necessary under the law. Furthermore, it was determined that the blocking of CNICs did not fall within the legal powers of the Banking Court as stipulated under the relevant statutes.The Court set aside the impugned order due to these procedural and legal shortcomings and allowed the appeal, remanding the case back to the Executing Court to initiate a fresh process in accordance with the law and the observations made by the High Court.-----Citations/Precedents:Messrs Azhar & Co. and others v. National Bank of Pakistan (2018 CLD 830)Muhammad Asif v. Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Limited through Manager (2022 CLD 1021)Muhammad Umar v Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others (PLD 2017 Sindh 585)Hafiz Awais Zafar v Judge Family Court, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 2022 Lahore 756)Urooj Tabani v Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others (PLD 2021 Islamabad 105)Habib Ahmad v. Haji Munir Ahmad (2004 YLR 1540)Messrs 3-A Trade Impex through Partner and 2 others v. Askari Commercial Bank Ltd, through Branch Manager (2005 CLD 1379)Abdul Basit Zahid v. Modaraba Al-Tijarah through Chief Executive and 2 others (PLD 2000 Karachi 322)Muhammad Kaleem v. Arslan Aslam and others (2023 CLC 796)

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.''