Placement of name in E.C.L. Judgment
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a Pakistani citizen, Riaz Ahmad, who had worked as an auto mechanic in Doha, Qatar since 1995, returning home once a year to see his family. In September 2012, when he arrived in Pakistan, authorities stopped him at the airport because his name had been placed on the Exit Control List, which prevents people from leaving the country. His passport was taken and he was investigated by intelligence agencies, but nothing incriminating was found against him; a local army-constituted committee even issued a character certificate in his favor. Despite this, his name remained on the list, his passport was not returned, and his repeated appeals went unanswered. The government claimed his name was added based on an intelligence recommendation alleging involvement in terrorist activity during a military operation in Swat, but provided no evidence or formal charges.
The Islamabad High Court ruled in his favor, holding that the right to travel is a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be taken away without due process. Since no trial had been held and the petitioner had not been cleared either, keeping him in limbo indefinitely was unlawful. The court ordered his name removed from the Exit Control List and his passport returned immediately.
This case matters because it reinforces that government authorities cannot restrict citizens' fundamental rights, like freedom of movement, based on vague or unproven allegations, and must act fairly and within a reasonable time.
یہ مقدمہ ایک پاکستانی شہری ریاض احمد سے متعلق ہے جو 1995ء سے دوحہ، قطر میں آٹو مکینک کے طور پر کام کر رہا تھا اور سال میں ایک بار اپنے خاندان سے ملنے وطن واپس آتا تھا۔ ستمبر 2012ء میں جب وہ پاکستان پہنچا تو حکام نے ایئرپورٹ پر اسے روک لیا کیونکہ اس کا نام ایگزٹ کنٹرول لسٹ میں ڈال دیا گیا تھا، جو لوگوں کو ملک چھوڑنے سے روکتی ہے۔ اس کا پاسپورٹ ضبط کر لیا گیا اور خفیہ ایجنسیوں نے اس کی تحقیقات کیں، لیکن اس کے خلاف کوئی قابلِ اعتراض بات سامنے نہ آئی؛ بلکہ ایک مقامی فوجی کمیٹی نے اس کے حق میں کردار کا سرٹیفکیٹ بھی جاری کیا۔ اس کے باوجود اس کا نام فہرست سے نہ ہٹایا گیا، پاسپورٹ واپس نہ کیا گیا، اور اس کی بار بار کی اپیلوں کا کوئی جواب نہ دیا گیا۔ حکومت کا کہنا تھا کہ اس کا نام ایک خفیہ ادارے کی سفارش پر شامل کیا گیا تھا جس میں الزام لگایا گیا تھا کہ سوات میں فوجی آپریشن کے دوران وہ دہشت
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2014 Islamabad 67 Present: Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi , C.J. RIAZ AHMAD--Petitioner versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN etc.--Respondents W.P. No. 3085 of 2013, decided on 9.9.2013. Constitution of Pakistan , 1973-- ----Art. 4, 9 & 15--Fundamental rights--Right to movement/travel is a fundamental right of every citizen guaranteed under Arts. 4, 9 and 15 of Constitution. [P. 68] A Constitution of Pakistan , 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Placement of name in E.C.L.--Challenge to--Non mentioned any specific reason for placing name on E.C.L.--Validity--Therefore, no one can be allowed to deprive a citizen from his/her fundamental rights, save in accordance with due process of law--Where a citizen is in possession of legal documents to travel abroad, mere allegation that his visit abroad would endanger the security of state cannot be held to be a valid ground for curtailment of right for endless period--None can be kept in lurch for an indefinite period--Neither conducted any trial against petitioner in connection with his alleged involvement in terrorist activities nor has he been exonerated of the charges--Government authorities are the patrons of the citizen and they have to adhere to law for resolving the genuine issues of the aggrieved persons. [Pp. 68 & 69] B, C, D & E Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal Zafar , Advocate for Petitioner. Qazi Rafi - ud -Din Babar, D.A.-G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9.9.2013. Order The petitioner has challenged the placement of his name in the Exit Control List [E.C.L] as being malafide and arbitrary act of the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner had been serving at Doha Qattar since 1995 in connection with his job as Auto Mobile Mechanic and used to see his family once in a year pursuant to annual vacations allowed to him by His Employer and lastly when he entered Pakistan on 13-09-2012 through Bacha Khan International Airport, the agency of Respondent No. 2 intercepted him on the pretext of having name on ECL and sent him to AHTC for inquiry after taking Passport. He was kept under investigation by the Respondent No. 1 including ISI but nothing was found against him. To very his antecedents, local area committee, constituted by the Pakistan Army, also submitted a character certificate in his favour .
3. It is the case of the petitioner, that he remained non controversial and had never been part of any anti-social activities and remained out of country since last 19 years, therefore, placement of his name on ECL, without any justification is absolutely illegal, un constitutional is liable to be set-aside. He also prays for a direction to the respondents to return his Passport as he has to go back to his job in Qatar before expiry of his Visa till 13-09-2013.
4. According to version of respondent FIA, the name of the petitioner was placed on ECL on the direction of Respondent No. 1, whereas the latter in their separate written comments advanced justification that the name of the petitioner was placed on E.C.L on 12.03.2012, on the recommendation of ISI as he was active in terrorist activities against Security Forces in Swat during Swat Operation.
5. Heard and record perused.
6. It is evident from record that the respondents have not mentioned any specific reason for placing the name of the petitioner on ECL. His repeated representations/appeals also remained un-attended, which is quite strange.
7. Right to movement/travel is a fundamental right of every citizen guaranteed under Articles 04, 09 and 15 of the Constitution. It is universally recognized right enshrined in Article 12(4) "Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own" of the Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, adopted by United Nations General Assembly on 16th December, 1966 and enforced with effect from 23rd March, 1976. Therefore, no one can be allowed to deprive a citizen from his/her fundamental rights, save in accordance with due process of law. Where a citizen is in possession of legal documents to travel abroad, mere allegation that his visit abroad would endanger the security of state cannot be held to be a valid ground for curtailment of right for endless period. Guidance may be resorted to PLD 2010 SC 61, PLD 1987 SC 504, PLD 1997 Lah
617.
8. It is pertinent to mention that none can be kept in lurch for an indefinite period. The respondent has also not controverted the grounds of the petition through para -wise comments, whereby the petitioner alleged that since 19th September, 2012 he has made several representations to get his grievances redressed, but of no avail. The record does not show any justifiable reason for placing the name of the petitioner on ECL. Even no order with specific allegation is there.
9. The authorities are under obligation to solve the problems of the general public in a fair and just manner and to decide their applications within a reasonable time. They are not supposed to sit over the issues for indefinite period without any decision.
10. In the instant case the act of respondents is sheer violation of fundamental rights, where the respondents have neither conducted any trial against petitioner in connection with his alleged involvement in terrorist activities nor has he been exonerated of the charges. The government authorities are the patrons of the citizen and they have to adhere to law for resolving the genuine issues of the aggrieved persons.
11. The respondents are so indifferent to the rights of the petitioner that none of them is even ready to shoulder responsibility of the impugned action.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to remove the name of the petitioner from Exit Control List and to hand over his Passport forthwith. There will be no order as to costs. (R.A.) Petition accepted