2026 M L D 125
[Balochistan]
Before Shaukat Ali Rakhshani and Gul Hassan Tareen, JJ
LAL BAKHSH ---Petitioner
Versus
The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Ministry of Interior, Government of
Pakistan at Islamabad and 2 others ---Respondents
Constitutional Petition No. 952 of 2025, decided on 11th August, 2025. (a) Passports Rules, 2021---
----Rr. 21 & 22---Passport Control List (PCL), Placing name on PCL ---Scope ---Name of
the petitioner was borne on the Passport Control List (PCL) on account /allegation of his
illegal entry into Iran in an attempt to proceed to Europe ---Validity ---Under Rule 21 and
Rule 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021 (‘ the Rules, 2021’), names of the persons can be placed under category A and B for a period of five years ---Said Rules evinced that two
different categories have been set forth for inclusion of the name of a person under PCL; Category A for the persons accused of anti -state activities and Category B for the persons
other than those involved in anti -state activities ---Petitioner was not an accused of
involvement in anti -state activities ; likewise, no criminal record had been brought on
record by the official respondents, showing that the petitioner had ever been involved in any anti -state activities ---Thus, the petitioner could not be restrained from moving, from
one place to another, including departure from Pakistan---No material had been brought on record to demonstrate that the petitioner ever visited a foreign country illegally without travel documents ---Hence, placing the name of petitioner on PCL by the official
respondents was unlawful and of no legal effect ---High Court directed the respondents to
remove the name of the petitioner from the PCL forthwith---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan ---
----Art. 15---Passports Rules, 2021, Rr. 21 & 22--- Passport Control List (PCL) ---Placing name
on PCL ---Right to freedom of movement ---Name of the petitioner was borne on the Passport
Control List (PCL) on account /allegation of his illegal entry into Iran in an attempt to proceed
to Europe ---Validity ---Undoubtedly, when name of an individual is placed on PCL or ECL,
his freedom of movement is curtailed and the same tantamounts to violation of fundamental rights and in such state of affairs, the authority is to be exercised by Executive sparingly after taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances ---Right of an individual to travel
abroad as guaranteed under Art.15 of the Constitution cannot be lightly trifled, even if he is an accused in a criminal case---The liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed merely by the registration of a criminal case and that mere registration of FIR would not be a ground for depriving a citizen of exercise of his constitutional right and further that registration of a criminal case has no nexus with and is extraneous to the object of the exit from Pakistan---Hence, placing the name of petitioner on PCL by the official respondents was unlawful and of no legal effect ---
High Court directed the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from the PCL forthwith ---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Rafique v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 MLD 579 and Federal Government through
Secretary Interior v. Ms. Ayyan Ali 2017 SCMR 1179 ref.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan ---
----Arts. 9 & 10A ---Passports Rules, 2021, Rr. 21 & 22---Passport Control List (PCL) ---
Placing name on PCL ---Right to liberty ---Right to due process ---There is no provision in
the law that explicitly authorizes the Federal Government or any of its agencies to restrain a person from travelling abroad by placing their name on the PCL without lawful
justification, more particularly without any notice ---Allowing such arbitrary practices to
continue unchecked would not only undermine the rule of law, but also erode the very
fabric of the society, more expressly the fundamental right to liberty so guaranteed under Art.9 of the Constitution---Prior to placing the name of the petitioner on PCL neither any show -cause was given to him to offer any explanation nor was he provided any
opportunity to explain his position---Such action on the part of respondents amounts to a
blatant violation of the fundamental right to due process as guaranteed under Art.10- A of
the Constitution ---The arbitrary action on behalf of the official respondents disregards the
dignity of the petitioner, who hails from an underprivileged background and sought to
earn a livelihood abroad---Petitioner has a constitutional right to travel abroad, which cannot be curtailed without due process of law ---Hence, placing the name of petitioner
on PCL by the official respondents was unlawful and of no legal effect ---High Court
directed the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from the PCL forthwith---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Saddam Mengal for Petitioner.
Fareedullah Kakar and Baqir Bakhtiar Assistant Attorney Generals along with Faiz
Hussain Director Immigration and passport Quetta and Umer Saeed AD Legal FIA for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28th August, 2025(sic).
JUDGMENT
SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J .---The instant constitutional petition has been filed
under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”) by
the petitioner, which carries the following relief;
“To declare that the impugned act of off -loading the petitioner from Airport on pretext of
having placed his name in the list, existing from Pakistan, without any cogent and plausible reasons is illegal, and contrary to law as well as the fundamental rights of the petitioner, guaranteed under the Constitution.
b. To direct the respondents to exclude the name of the petitioner from the list so
prepared by respondents/ FIA and to enable the petitioner to freely travel abroad, in accordance with law.
c. Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded, in
the interest of equity, fair play and justice.”
2. Relevant facts for disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner is a resident of
District Kharan, Balochistan, was issued work Visa No.6142836510 dated 21.05.2025 for employment with M/s. Naif Faihan Ali Alotaibi through M/s. Luxera Enterprises Overseas Employment. According to the petitioner, while he was travelling to Jeddah, Saudia Arabia, the FIA officials at the Karachi airport offloaded him without any justifiable cause, hence this petition.
3. In response to the notices issued by this Court, respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed their
parawise comments, contesting the petition on legal and factual premises.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the name of petitioner was placed on
Passports Control List (“PCL”) without justification and that no show -cause notice was issued to
the petitioner, which amounts to violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. He lastly prayed for the acceptance of this petition by directing the official respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from the PCL.
Conversely, learned AAG controverted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner and contended that the name of petitioner was placed on PLC on account of his illegal entry into the Iran without any travel documents. He maintained that no fundamental rights of the petitioner have not been infringed, thus, prayed for the dismissal of instant petition.
5. Heard. Record vetted.
6. The Federal Government, under the Rule 22 of the Passports Control Rules, 2021 (“Rule,
2021”) is vested with the powers to regulate the departure from Pakistan, entry into and visit to
foreign countries of its citizens and that Directorate General prepares and maintains a PCL for placement of names and other record of individuals who have been refused passport facilities under category “A” and “B” respectively. Similarly, the Additional Secretary of the Division concerned in case of category “A” and Director General in case of category “B” considers omission of name of any person from such list on appeal even before the normal period of five years. To understand the laws related to PCL, Rule 21 and category “A”,“B and “C” of Rule 22 of the Rules, 2021 are as infra; -
“21. Refusal of passport. A citizen of Pakistan may be refused issuance of passport for
the time being on any of the following grounds, namely:
(a) on the orders of courts or tribunals;
22. Passport Control List…..
(a) under category ‘A’, the names of those persons are placed who are involved in anti -
state activities or whose visit to foreign countries is considered to be prejudicial to the State interest or, whose visit abroad is banned from security point of view. The names in this list shall be placed and removed by the Additional Secretary of the Division concerned;
(b) under category ‘B’, the names of those persons are placed who have been refused
passport under these rules other than anti -state activities specified in clause (a). The names of
persons included in the category under this clause may also be placed on the recommendations of
government agencies or departments;
(c) normal period of retaining a person on the PCL is five years. However, a person may
be kept on PCL even beyond five years provided the referring department or agency
recommends for further retention having full justification in this regard. The Additional Secretary of the Division concerned in case of category “A” and Director General in case of category “B” may consider omission of name of any person from such list on appeal even before the normal period of five years”
7. Bare reading of the Rules ibid make it clear that names of the persons can be placed
under category A and B of Rules, 2021 for a period of five years. In case in hand, the name of the Petitioner has been borne on the PCL vide letter dated 19.12.2024 on account of his illegal entry into Iran in an attempt to proceed to Europe, therefore, his name was included under the Integrated Border Management System (“IBMS”).
Careful perusal of the above rules evinced that two different categories have been set
forth for inclusion of the name of a person under PCL. Category A for the persons accused of anti-state activities and Category B for the persons other than those involved in anti -state
activities. The Petitioner is not an accused of involvement in anti -state activities. Likewise, no
criminal record has been brought on record by the official respondents, showing that the petitioner has ever been involved in any anti -state activities, thus, without any prove of
committing crime, the petitioner cannot be restrained from moving, one place to another, including departure from Pakistan.
8. Undoubtedly, when name of an individual is placed on PCL or ECL, his freedom of
movement is curtailed and the same tantamounts to violation of fundamental rights and in such
state of affairs, the Authority is to be exercised by executive sparingly after taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances. It is now well established law that right of an individual to travel abroad as guaranteed under Article 15 of the Constitution cannot be lightly trifled, even if he is an accused in a criminal case. In this regard, we are fortified with the judgment expounded in the cases of “Rafique v. Federation of Pakistan” (2018 MLD 579).
9. Article 15 of the Constitution recognizes the Right to Freedom of Movement, with an
assurance that “Every citizen shall have the right to remain in, and, subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by law in the public interest, enter and move freely throughout Pakistan and
to reside and settle in any part thereof”. The Supreme Court in the case of “Federal Government
through Secretary Interior v. Ms. Ayyan Ali (2017 SCMR 1179), held that the liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed merely by the registration of a criminal case and that mere registration of FIR would not be a ground for depriving a citizen of exercise of his constitutional right and further that registration of a criminal case has no nexus with and is extraneous to the object of the Exit
from Pakistan. The relevant excerpt of Ms. Ayyan Ali’s case is as infra;
“13. Reverting to the third Notification/Memorandum it is crucial to note that like the
earlier two Notifications/ Memorandums, the third Notification/Memorandum was issued
purportedly for the reasons which do not conform to the criteria as laid down in the relevant rules and the exit control policy. It was not only in the case of Wajid Shamsul Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad (PLD 1997 Lahore 617), where it was held that the liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed by mere registering a criminal case, and that mere registration of FIR would not be a ground for depriving a citizen of the exercise of his constitutional right and further that registration of a criminal case has no nexus with and is extraneous to the object of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, but even in the case of Pages 16 of 16 respondent No.1, in relation to the second Notification/ Memorandum, this Court, while dismissing the petitioner's petition for leave, through judgment dated 13.4.2016,
has held as follows: - "5. Respondent No.1, no doubt, has been charged in a case mentioned
above which is still pending adjudication in the competent Court of law. But mere pendency of a
criminal case cannot furnish a justification for prohibiting her movement. It has never been the
case of the petitioners that the respondent is involved in any of the cases listed in Rule 2 of the
Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010 in general or Rule 2(1)(b) in particular, inasmuch as she has not been charged to have embezzled a large government's fraud or committed institutional fraud." However, as noted above the third Notification/ Memorandum was issued on
the ground clearly not falling within the parameters as prescribed by the relevant law, rules, and
the above unequivocal pronouncement of this Court.”
[Emphasis added]
10. That apart there is no provision in the law that explicitly authorizes the Federal
Government or any of its agencies to restrain a person from travelling abroad by placing their
name on the PCL without lawful justification, more particularly without any notice. Allowing such arbitrary practices to continue unchecked would not only undermine the rule of law, but also erode the very fabric of the society, more expressly the fundamental right to liberty so guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution.
11. So be it, prior to placing the name of the petitioner on PCL neither any showcase was
given to him to offer any explanation nor was the petitioner provided any opportunity to explain his position. Such action on the part of respondents amounts to a blatant violation of the fundamental right to due process as guaranteed under Article 10 -A of the Constitution. The
arbitrary action on behalf of the official respondents disregards the dignity of the petitioner, who hails from an underprivileged background and sought to earn a livelihood abroad. Furthermore, no material been brought on record to demonstrate that the petitioner ever visited a foreign country illegally without travel documents.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner
has a constitutional right to travel abroad, which cannot be curtailed without due process of law, henceforth placing his name on PCL by the official respondents is unlawful and of no legal effect.
13. Corollary, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to remove the name of
the petitioner from the PCL forthwith with further direction not to create any hurdle or obstruction for the petitioner, whilst travelling abroad by the Federal Government or any of its law enforcing agency.
14. Office to transmit copy of this order to learned Additional Attorney General, Balochistan
as well as official respondents for information and compliance.
MQ/113/Bal. Petition allowed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.