PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday ruled that placing a citizen’s name on the Exit Control List (ECL), Provincial National Identification List (PNIL), blacklist or Passport Control List (PCL) without prior notice or show-cause proceedings was unlawful and declared the practice a violation of fundamental rights.
According to the judgment, agencies, including the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), immigration authorities, National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) and other relevant institutions do not possess the authority to impose restrictions on citizens’ freedom of movement without lawful justification or to create administrative hurdles.
The court directed that citizens must be informed within 24 hours before their names are placed on any such list. It also instructed the federal interior secretary to submit a compliance report within 15 days regarding implementation of the court’s order.
The two-member bench comprising Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal heard petitions concerning travel bans imposed on applicants, confiscation of passports and refusal to renew documents of Pakistanis living abroad. The detailed 36-page judgment was authored by Justice Sahibzada Asadullah.
Petitioner’s counsel Mahmood Ali Turi, advocate, and others argued that their clients’ names had been placed on the PNIL, blacklist and PCL, barring them from travelling abroad. Among the affected persons were students admitted to foreign universities and workers seeking employment overseas. Several applicants, they pleaded, including Ahmad Khan, Muzammil and Zulfiqar Ali Shah, were placed on the PNIL without any notice while some even faced difficulties in returning to Pakistan.
In one case, Hidayat Hussain was reportedly stopped at the airport for 12 to 48 hours and his passport was taken into custody. Similarly, overseas Pakistanis residing in Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia were denied passport renewals at diplomatic missions, putting their employment and legal status at risk.
Other petitioners, including Kabir Hussain, Ismail Hussain and Sohail Abbas, had their names placed on the PCL and ECL, causing difficulties in visa renewals, residency status and legal stay abroad, with risks of arrest, deportation and job loss. Labourers working in Gulf countries also lost employment and legal standing after their work visas and residence permits could not be renewed due to their names appearing on travel control lists.
The applicants had submitted representations to the relevant authorities, but no action was taken, the court was told.
The bench observed that it was the responsibility of state institutions to facilitate citizens rather than create administrative obstacles. The state possesses enforcement machinery, databases and border control systems, while citizens rely solely on the protection of law, which must be upheld.
The court ruled that Articles 9 and 15 of the Constitution guaranteed citizens the right to liberty and freedom of movement, and that people cannot be prevented from travelling except under lawful restrictions imposed in the public interest.
Under the ECL Control Rules 2010, travel bans may only be imposed on persons involved in corruption, financial crimes, terrorism, banking fraud or other serious offences.
The court further held that the blacklist and PNIL were administrative instruments created through standard operating procedures (SOPs) or office memoranda and were not laws enacted by parliament. Creating such lists amounted to establishing a parallel legal regime that bypassed the ECL Ordinance.
The judgment noted that citizens were often stopped at airports without orders or prior information. If the legislature intended to empower immigration or FIA authorities to stop individuals from travelling for 30 days or more without an ECL order, the law must be amended accordingly.
The court declared that a person cannot be prevented from travelling abroad merely by being placed on a blacklist, as the right to travel was an essential component of fundamental human rights. It also held that the executive cannot introduce measures restricting citizens without parliamentary authority.
Accordingly, placing petitioners’ names on the blacklist or PNIL without notice was declared illegal and equivalent to bypassing the ECL Ordinance and rules.
The court emphasised that refusing to renew documents was unlawful. Authorities vested with statutory powers cannot act under external dictation, although they may consider recommendations. The final decision-making authority rested with the federal government, including the additional secretary or director general concerned.
Refusing passport services to overseas citizens was also declared illegal, as citizens have the right to employment and lawful economic activity abroad. Under the Passport Act and Passport Rules 2021, valid reasons must be recorded before placing a citizen’s name on the PCL.
The court further ruled that failure to renew passports constituted misuse of authority. “Merely because an investigation is pending or a case has been registered does not justify placing someone on the ECL unless the case falls within the defined categories under the rules,” the verdict stated.
Authorities were directed to decide all pending applications of the petitioners under Section 3 of the ECL law within 15 days.
The court also held that the NADRA’s role was limited to issuing identity documents, registration and maintaining the national database, and it was not an enforcement agency responsible for border control or restricting travel rights.
The court held that no travel restriction may be imposed unless there was a serious emergency or a show-cause notice has been issued at least 24 hours in advance. Restricting movement or withholding documents were extreme measures that may only be justified on national security grounds.
The bench barred all government agencies and departments from placing citizens on travel restriction lists or imposing bans without issuing reasoned orders and show-cause notices. The FIA was directed to return confiscated passports within 15 days while the federal government was instructed to decide such cases within the same timeframe.
The federal interior secretary was also directed to submit a compliance report within 30 days.
