ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has declared unconstitutional a provision of the Passport Rules, 2021, that allowed the placement of a citizen’s name on the Passport Control List (PCL) on the recommendation of government agencies or departments without identifying a competent authority or providing legal safeguards.

Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, in a detailed judgement, declared the second limb of Rule 22(2)(b) ultra vires the Passports Act, 1974, and Articles 4, 9, 10A and 15 of the Constitution, holding that it was of no legal effect.

The judgement was issued on a petition filed by Moinuddin, who was offloaded at Islamabad International Airport on Dec 18, 2025, while travelling to Saudi Arabia for Umrah. He possessed a valid Pakistani passport, a valid Saudi visa and a confirmed air ticket, but no reason was communicated to him for stopping him from travelling.

The court noted that his passport had never been impounded, confiscated, cancelled or inactivated, nor had its issuance or renewal been refused. The dispute, therefore, centred on the question whether the agency had the authority to restrain a citizen from travelling on a valid passport.

According to the judgement, his name was placed on the PCL on Dec 24, 2024, on the recommendation of NCB-INTERPOL, forwarded by the FIA’s Assistant Director (Immigration Wing). The action followed his deportation from the UK after his conviction for causing death by dangerous driving while under the influence of alcohol. He had served a three-year sentence.

The court noted that he had completed his sentence and been deported, while no criminal case, inquiry or investigation was pending against him in Pakistan. He was neither a proclaimed offender nor the subject of an extradition request.

The IHC rejected the justification provided by the passport authorities to retain his name on the PCL that his conduct had adversely affected Pakistan’s reputation and that the placement was intended to create deterrence.

The court observed that these grounds were not contained in the Passports Act or the Passport Rules. Rule 21 dealt with refusal of a passport and did not authorise restraint of a citizen who already possessed a valid passport, the judgement stated.

“The refusal of a passport and the prohibition of travel are two separate exercises of power,” Justice Minhas observed, declaring that the function of the relevant division and directorate general to “prepare and maintain” the PCL was administrative and did not itself confer jurisdiction to decide whose name could be placed on the list.

The court pointed out that Rule 22(2) referred to individuals whose passport facilities had been refused. Moinuddin had never been refused a passport. It also noted that Rule 22(2)(a) specifically identified the additional secretary of the relevant division as the authority competent to place and remove names in Category A, whereas clause (b) identified no such authority.

The IHC held that neither the directorate general of FIA nor NCB-INTERPOL possessed the authority to place the petitioner’s name on the PCL in the circumstances of the case.

It observed that the impugned order merely stated that it had been issued with the approval of the “competent authority” without identifying that authority, the legal provision invoked or the material on which the decision was based.

The court found that the impugned provision provided no competent authority, objective criteria, notice, hearing, reasons or communication of the decision, meaning that a citizen could learn of the restriction only after being stopped at the immigration counter.

The judgement declared the second limb of Rule 22(2)(b) — allowing PCL placement on the recommendations of government agencies or departments — beyond Sections 8 and 13 of the Passports Act and inconsistent with the Constitution.

About the reasons of “international reputation” and “deterrence”, the court held that since the petitioner had completed his sentence and no proceedings were pending against him, the restraint had no “live and proximate nexus with a present necessity”.

“Gravity does not supply jurisdiction,” it said.

Expressing displeasure over the authorities’ failure to comply with an earlier order, the IHC directed them to decide the petitioner’s application within one week through a speaking and well-reasoned order.

The court consequently set aside the Jan 26, 2026, order of the agency and declared the petitioner’s placement on the PCL on Dec 24, 2024, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

It directed the authorities to remove his name from the PCL within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgement and not to interfere with his lawful foreign travel on the basis of the impugned placement.

The court clarified that the competent authority could still take action warranted by law after following the prescribed procedure. Copies of the judgement were sent to the Interior Secretary, Immigration and Passports DG and FIA DG for compliance.

Published in Dawn, September 27th, 2026