Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000

Section: 18

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: VII Rule 11, 41 Rule 31

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 128, 114, 129(e)

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

SUMMARY High Court, accepted a writ petition filed by Sana Ali Khan and others, challenging notices issued by NADRA under Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, which had led to the digital impounding of their CNICs. The petitioners' CNICs were blocked based on vague allegations of doubtful citizenship, with NADRA`s notices lacking specific grounds or evidence, violating principles of natural justice. Notably, NADRA had previously admitted the petitioner`s identity and family lineage in a civil suit. The court held that NADRA`s actions were arbitrary and lacked transparency, applying the doctrine of estoppel to prevent NADRA from contradicting its earlier stance. Consequently, the writ petition was accepted, the impugned notices were set aside, and respondents were directed to restore the petitioner`s CNICs forthwith.   The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution seeking restoration of their CNICs and passports, along with declaration of citizenship status. NADRA had issued notices under Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 and later “digitally impounded” the CNICs of several family members based on allegations of doubtful citizenship arising from a civil suit filed by a relative. The Court found that the impugned notices were vague, generalized, and lacked specific allegations or factual basis against each petitioner. It held that NADRA failed to disclose clear reasons for adverse action, violating principles of due process, fairness, and transparency. The Court also noted that NADRA itself had earlier accepted and pleaded in civil proceedings that petitioner No.1 and his family had verified identity and blood relations, creating inconsistency in its stance. Relying on constitutional protections and superior court precedents (including principles of natural justice and Article 114 & 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984), the Court held that NADRA could not take contradictory positions or act on unsubstantiated claims. Consequently, the impugned notices were declared illegal and CNICs were ordered to be restored. Sections / Legal Provisions Used Article 199 – Constitutional jurisdiction…