P L D 2025 Balochistan 170
Before Rozi Khan Barrech, C.J. and Sardar Ahmed Haleemi, J
IKRAM-UL-HAQ and others---Petitioners
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary, Quetta and others---
Respondents
Constitutional Petition No.874 of 2025, decided on 22nd July, 2025.
(a) Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951)---
----S.17---Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, R.23(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---
Domicile Certificate and Permanent Resident Certificate, issuance of---Prerequisites and
criterion---Continuous residence and supporting ownership or tenancy records, proving of---
Mandatory ten-year residency criterion---Scope---The petitioners challenged the impugned
order whereby the domicile of petitioner No.1, originally issued by the Deputy
Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan in 1994, was cancelled on 21.01.2025 by the Deputy
Commissioner, Quetta, on grounds of prior domicile---Petitioner No.1 had permanently
shifted to Quetta in 2003, married there, and since then resided continuously with his family,
including petitioner Nos.2 to 6, who were all born and raised in Quetta---Upon petitioner
No.2's application for issuance of domicile of District Quetta, required for higher education,
the application was rejected under the impugned order---Held: The petitioner No.1 had a
domicile of Dera Ghazi Khan issued in his favour on 25.04.1994 which was cancelled on his
own request on 21.01.2025 by the Deputy Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan---With respect to
seeking domicile of District Quetta by the children of the petitioner No.1 for higher studies it
was necessary to clarify that the petitioner No.2 (daughter of petitioner No.1) had not
annexed her educational credentials to establish her permanent residence in Quetta City---
Petitioner No.2 was born on 17.10.2005 and after a considerable delay of thirteen years she
obtained her birth registration certificate on 18.01.2018 which showed mala fide on her part--
-Petitioners failed to provide adequate proof of compliance with the SOPs including
mandatory 10-year residency critera and supporting evidence such as valid property
ownership or long terms rental agreements---No infirmity or perversity was found in the
impugned order warranting interference by the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction---
Petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.
(b) Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951)---
----S. 17---Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, R.23(b)---Domicile certificate, acquiring of---
Procedural framework---Criterion---Factors to be considered stated---Legally domicile in
Pakistan is governed by S. 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 and R. 23 of the Pakistan
Citizenship Rules, 1952---These provide the basis and procedural framework for acquiring
domicile---Rule 23(b) empowers the competent authority to demand evidence establishing
both continuous residence and intent to remain---Factors considered include length of stay,
family ties, property ownership, school enrollment, local employment, and community
participation---Therefore, person seeking issuance of domicile must substantiate their
permanent and continuous residence and intent to remain at the place through credible
evidence.
(c) Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951)---
----S.17---Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, R. 23---Domicile and Permanent Residency
Certificate---Distinction---Scope---The word "Domicile", derived from the Latin
"domicilium," denotes a person's permanent legal home and establishes their legal affiliation
with a specific territorial jurisdiction---It plays a central role in determining personal legal
status, including matters of marriage, succession, and eligibility for region-specific rights and
obligations---Domicile is not synonymous with residence or nationality; it is a unique legal
concept rooted in both fact and intention---Classically, domicile consists of two elements: (i)
factum; actual residence in a place, and (ii) animus manendi; the intention to remain there
indefinitely---Three primary types of domicile are recognized: (1) domicile of origin,
acquired at birth; (2) domicile of choice, acquired upon lawful settlement in a new place with
intent to remain; and (3) domicile of dependence, which applies to minors and others under
legal incapacity---A person may have several residences but only one domicile at a time, and
a domicile persists until displaced by a new one through both residence and intent (facto et
animo).
Joan Mary Carter v. Albert William Carter PLD 1961 SC 616 and Muhammad Yar
Khan v. Deputy Commissioner 1980 SCMR 456 rel.
Mst. Kishwar Rehman v. Government of Balochistan PLD 2001 Quetta 78; Mubashar
Mehmood v. Home and Tribal Affairs PLD 2018 Balochistan 49 and Muhammad Zaryab Ali
v. Ministry of Religious Affairs 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1361 ref.
(d) Fundamental Rights---
----Administrative guidelines---Such guidelines when issued within the bounds of statutory
authority and aimed at maintaining public order or verifying claims, do not infringe
constitutional rights.
Naimatullah Achakzai and Shams Ullah Khan Nasar for Petitioners.
Date of hearing: 18th June, 2025.
ORDER
SARDAR AHMED HALEEMI, J.--- The petitioners in the instant Constitution
Petition have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution") with the following
relief:
"A. Declare the Impugned order dated 16-05-2025 and the Impugned SOPs to the
extent of paras Nos.1 and 3 as illegal and of no legal effect and consequently set-aside
the Impugned Order dated:16-05-2025 and Impugned SOPs to the extent of paras
Nos. 1 and 3;
B. Declare that the petitioners being permanent residents of District Quetta and
entitled to be issued Permanent resident Certificates and Domicile Certificates of
District Quetta,
C. Direct the Respondents to issue the Domicile and Permanent Certificates to the
Petitioners in accordance with law or in alternate to issue the Domicile certificate to
the petitioners Nos.2 to 6 immediately,
D. Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances
of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner in the interest of justice, equity and
fair play."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contended that the impugned order dated
16-05-2025 and SOPs contravene the principles of law, facts, and natural justice, making
them invalid; that the petitioners have been residing permanently in Quetta since 2003,
fulfilling all legal requirements for domicile of District Quetta. Their lack of ties to the
previous domicile district further supports their claim; that the SOPs lack support from any
statute or delegated legislation, rendering them devoid of legal authority; that the actions of
the respondents infringe upon the petitioners' constitutional rights, including Article 4 (Right
to be dealt with in accordance with law), Article 9 (Right to life, livelihood, and dignity),
Article 15 (Freedom of movement and right to reside in any part of Pakistan) and Article 25
(Equality before the law); that the denial of domicile deprives petitioners of access to higher
education and professional opportunities, violating their rights under Articles 18 and 26 of
the Constitution; that the respondents failed to consider evidence such as long-term
residence, property ownership, voter registration, and prior domicile cancellation when the
impugned order was passed; that the petitioners were denied the right to a fair hearing,
violating Article 10- A of the Constitution; that the actions taken by respondents are
arbitrary, depriving the petitioners of their lawful rights and causing undue hardship; that the
petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 have no connection with their prior domicile district, as they have
lived in Quetta since birth; that the SOPs impose unreasonable restrictions unsupported by
law and contradict established principles that administrative instructions cannot override
fundamental rights or statutory duties; that the SOPs, which aim to prevent abuse of domicile
rules for employment or education quotas, do not account for the unique circumstances of the
petitioners; that the law does not permit leaving individuals without domicile, violating their
constitutional rights. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners placed
reliance on the cases of Government of Balochistan and others v. Rifat Parveen (1981 SCMR
1002), Mst. Kishwar Rehman v. Government of Balochistan through Secretary Health
Department, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 4 others (PLD 2001 Quetta 78) and Sana Khalil v.
Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College, Quetta, through Chairman and 8 others (2003
YLR 29 Quetta).
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the available record
with his able assistance.
4. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner No.1 had a domicile of Dera Ghazi Khan
bearing Certificate No.1679/R.K.E.O dated 27.04.1994 issued by the Deputy Commissioner,
Dera Ghazi Khan, and he shifted to Quetta in the year 2003. The petitioner, No. 1, got married
to one Bibi Arifa on 08.12.2003 in Quetta; out of wedlock, three sons and two daughters
(petitioners Nos.2 to 6) were born. After passing the intermediate, petitioner No.2 intended to
apply for higher education in the educational institutions, for which, she required for her
domicile certificate, thus, she through her father (petitioner No.1) applied for issuance of her
domicile to the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta (respondent No.2), who after scrutiny of
documents, rejected the application on account of cancellation of domicile of petitioner No.1
on 21.01.2025 and SOPs notified by the Collector vide order dated 16.05.2025 ("Impugned
Order").
5. In the present case, it would be appropriate to distinguish between a domicile and a
permanent resident certificate. The word "Domicile", derived from the Latin "domicilium,"
denotes a person's permanent legal home and establishes their legal affiliation with a specific
territorial jurisdiction. It plays a central role in determining personal legal status, including
matters of marriage, succession, and eligibility for region-specific rights and obligations.
Domicile is not synonymous with residence or nationality; it is a unique legal concept rooted
in both fact and intention. Classically, domicile consists of two elements: (i) factum-actual
residence in a place, and (ii) animus manendi--the intention to remain there indefinitely.
Three primary types of domicile are recognized: (1) domicile of origin, acquired at birth; (2)
domicile of choice, acquired upon lawful settlement in a new place with intent to remain; and
(3) domicile of dependence, which applies to minors and others under legal incapacity. A
person may have several residences but only one domicile at a time, and a domicile persists
until displaced by a new one through both residence and intent (facto et animo). In Pakistan,
the jurisprudence surrounding domicile has undergone a marked evolution. Initially, the
Supreme Court, in Joan Mary Carter v. Albert William Carter (PLD 1961 SC 616), defined
domicile in accordance with private international law, emphasizing its nature as a permanent
legal connection to a sovereign state, rather than merely a region. The court distinguished
domicile from nationality and long-term residence, asserting that only presence combined
with a permanent intention to remain could establish a new domicile. This doctrine was
reaffirmed in Muhammad Yar Khan v. Deputy Commissioner (1980 SCMR 456), where the
Supreme Court clarified that domicile under Section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act,
1951, refers exclusively to the domicile of Pakistan, not any province or district. The court
highlighted the misuse of domicile certificates as proxies for local belonging and stressed
that such certificates should not be confused with permanent residence documents.
Furthermore, this court in the case of "Mst. Kishwar Rehman v. Government of Balochistan"
(PLD 2001 Quetta 78) further elaborated on this distinction, wherein it held that a domicile
certificate issued under the Citizenship Act only confirms a person's domicile in Pakistan and
does not validate local residency for district-specific benefits. Similarly, this court in the case
of "Mubashar Mehmood v. Home and Tribal Affairs" (PLD 2018 Balochistan 49), reiterated
that domicile and permanent residence are separate legal concepts and called for legislation
to regulate local entitlements based on permanent residency. Recent jurisprudence has moved
toward harmonizing the doctrinal and administrative aspects of domicile. In "Muhammad
Zaryab Ali v. Ministry of Religious Affairs" (2019 PLC (C.S.) 1361), the Islamabad High
Court recognized that in administrative practice, domicile certificates are used as composite
proof of both national affiliation and local residence. The court endorsed a reconciled
approach in determining eligibility for employment and admissions. Legally, domicile in
Pakistan is governed by Section 17 of the Citizenship Act, 1951, and Rule 23 of the
Citizenship Rules, 1952. These provide the basis and procedural framework for acquiring
domicile. Rule 23(b) empowers the competent authority to demand evidence establishing
both continuous residence and intent to remain. Factors considered include length of stay,
family ties, property ownership, school enrollment, local employment, and community
participation. Therefore, the burden is on the petitioners, who must substantiate their
permanent and continuous residence and intent to remain at the place through credible
evidence. It is worth noting that the Government of Balochistan lacks a transparent and
uniform system for issuing and verifying domicile certificates. This has led to widespread
misuse, where individuals with no real connection to the province obtain domiciles to
wrongfully claim seats and employment quotas meant for genuine residents, thus such a
practice undermines policies aimed at uplifting underdeveloped areas and deprives rightful
beneficiaries of their entitlements. In this context, the notified SOPs for issuance of domicile
for the District Quetta are as follows:-
1. A minimum of 10 years of permanent residency in District Quetta, verifiable through
CNICs and other official records.
2. Verification of parental CNICs or MNICs with addresses pertaining to District
Quetta.
3. Submission of a Family Registration Certificate (FRC) issued by NADRA.
4. Property ownership documents or authentic rental proofs spanning the last 10 years.
5. Evidence of children's educational enrollment within District Quetta.
6. Ground verification conducted by the concerned Tehsildar or SHO.
6. Now coming to the merits of the case, it is a matter of record that the petitioner No.1
had a domicile of Dera Ghazi Khan issued in his favour on 25.04.1994, which was cancelled
at his own request vide order dated 21.01.2025 by the Deputy Commissioner, Dera Ghazi
Khan. Learned counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the petitioner No. 2 intends to
pursue higher education in various educational institutions, as such, she applied for the
issuance of an independent domicile certificate. In this context, it is necessary to clarify that
the petitioner, No. 2, has not annexed her educational credentials to establish her permanent
residence in Quetta City. Perusal of the record reflects that the petitioner No.2 was born on
17.10.2005. After a considerable delay of thirteen years, she obtained her Birth Registration
Certificate on 18.01.2018, issued by the Incharge of the Registration Centre, Metropolitan
Corporation, Quetta, which shows mala fide on her part. Likewise, the names of petitioner
No. 1, his wife, Arifa Ikram-ul-Haq, and petitioner No. 2 were incorporated in the electoral
list on 09.01.2005, bearing Voter Certificate Nos. 3/2025, 4/2025, and 5/2025. Moreover, the
Deputy Commissioner of Quetta, upon considering the petitioners' applications, found the
submitted documentation insufficient to meet the prescribed requirements. The petitioners
failed to provide adequate proof of compliance with the SOPs, including the mandatory 10-
year residency criteria and supporting evidence such as valid property ownership or long-
term rental agreements. Moreover, the petitioners' contention that the SOPs contravene their
fundamental rights lacks merit. It is a settled principle of law that administrative guidelines,
when issued within the bounds of statutory authority and aimed at maintaining public order
or verifying claims, do not infringe constitutional rights. The SOPs are uniformly applicable
and do not exhibit any discriminatory intent or arbitrary application.
7. As a sequel to the above discussion, it is concluded that no infirmity or perversity has
been found in the impugned order, warranting interference of this Court in its constitutional
jurisdiction. However, in light of the aforementioned discussion, we are of the considered
view that in order to protect the rights of genuine permanent residents and to ensure the
lawful use of a permanent resident certificate/domicile, the following directions are
proposed:
1. The Government of Balochistan, through its Board of Revenue and Home
Department, shall frame and notify comprehensive, province-wide rules for the
issuance, verification, and cancellation of domicile certificates.
2. The rules must include: a. Clear and objective criteria for determining permanent
residence; b. A standardized, verifiable documentary checklist; c. Mandatory field
verification in disputed or doubtful cases at least from two agencies; d. A secure digital
record-keeping and tracking mechanism; e. A mechanism for cancellation of
fraudulently obtained domiciles and the initiation of legal proceedings.
3. These rules shall be finalized and notified within four months of the order.
4. The Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, shall ensure compliance and submit
a report to the Registrar of this Court.
These directions are issued under Articles 4, 9, and 25 of the Constitution to ensure
transparency, equality, and protection of the rights of marginalized communities, and to
rectify systemic flaws in the domicile regime.
8. The office is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary,
Balochistan, all Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners of the Province, and the concerned
Departments for necessary action and compliance. We also appreciate the enlightened
assistance rendered by Messrs Waseem Ahmed Raees and Izhar Ahmed Langove, Research
Officers of this Court.
The case laws referred to and relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are not
akin to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
For the above reasons, Constitution Petition No.874 of 2025 is dismissed in limine.
UN/84/Bal. Petition dismissed.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.