| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1508 2026 SLD 1508 = 2026 PLJ 34 |
Islamabad High Court
W.P No. 1081 of 2025, decided on 15.9.2025.
Presented By: Muhammad Asif, J.
Raja Rizwan Abbasi, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Shaista Tabassum, AAG. Mr. Mohsin Afzal, A.D CCRC, Islamabad. Date of hearing: 15.9.2025.
W.P No. 1081 of 2025, decided on 15.9.2025.
Presented By: Muhammad Asif, J.
Raja Rizwan Abbasi, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Shaista Tabassum, AAG. Mr. Mohsin Afzal, A.D CCRC, Islamabad. Date of hearing: 15.9.2025.
QASIM BIN MASOOD and others--Petitioner
VERSUS
FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY through its Director General FIA, Islamabad and another--Respondents
Law: Passports Act, 1974
Section: 22(1), 22(2) (b)(c)
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 419, 420, 468, 471, 473, 109, 34
Law: Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002
Section: 36,37
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
PLJ 2026 Islamabad 34 Passports Rules, 2021-- ----Rr. 22(1) & 22(2) (b)(c)--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471, 473, 109, 34--Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 (LI of 2002), Ss. 36 & 37--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Presumption of No Show-Cause Blacklist Passport Control List (PCL)--Suspension of Conviction Innocence--Fundamental Right to Travel--- FIA recommendation Notice/No Speaking Order-Requirement of Federal Government Approval--Preventive Restriction - Must Not Be Arbitrary--Procedural Fairness - Right to be Heard Periodic Review of PCL Entries--Any restraint on movement must have lawful justification and could not be imposed arbitrarily; executive discretion must be exercised sparingly, after application of mind, and must not be indefinite or disproportionate-No show-cause notice nor a speaking order explaining the grounds for blacklisting appears to have been issued to the petitioners prior to placing their names on the PCL. Even for persons who stand convicted, any preventive restriction on fundamental rights must have clear statutory backing and must be exercised after application of mind and by giving reasons-Where the rule is invoked the authority must show (i) that the case falls squarely within the categories enumerated in the Rule, (ii) that the decision was not taken mechanically, but after application of mind; (iii) that the restriction is proportionate to the mischief sought to be prevented; and (iv) that the person affected was given an opportunity to be heard, unless the urgency of the circumstance renders such hearing impracticable and then the authority must nevertheless record reasons for not giving such hearing-- a) no person shall be placed on the PCL without a contemporaneous record of reasons showing application of mind; b) wherever practicable a show-cause notice shall be issued before placing a person on PCL and an opportunity of hearing afforded; c) where emergency action is taken without prior notice, reasons for omission of prior notice must be recorded…