| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 3725 = 2026 SLD 3725 |
Islamabad High Court
W.P No.3627 of 23 & W.P No.3906 of 23
Presented By: (MUHAMMAD ASIF) JUDGE
10.04.2025 M/s. Khawaja Muhammad Imtiaz, Raja Rizwan Abbasi and Fawad Haider, Advocates for Petitioners. M/s. Nadeem Akhtar Afghan and Malik Muhammad Khalid, Law Officers, NADRA. Ms. Shaista Tabassum, Assistant Attorney General (AAG).
W.P No.3627 of 23 & W.P No.3906 of 23
Presented By: (MUHAMMAD ASIF) JUDGE
10.04.2025 M/s. Khawaja Muhammad Imtiaz, Raja Rizwan Abbasi and Fawad Haider, Advocates for Petitioners. M/s. Nadeem Akhtar Afghan and Malik Muhammad Khalid, Law Officers, NADRA. Ms. Shaista Tabassum, Assistant Attorney General (AAG).
(Muhammad Qadir
VS
. Nadra and others). &(Mst. Nafees Gul Vs. Government of Pakistan and others)
Law: National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000
Section: 18, 18(3)
Summary The petitioners challenged NADRA's action of digitally impounding/blocking their Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) on the ground of suspected Afghan nationality. The Islamabad High Court held that the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 provides a complete statutory mechanism for verification, cancellation, impounding, and appeal regarding CNICs. Since the petitioners' nationality verification proceedings were already pending before the competent authorities, the Court did not interfere and directed the petitioners to appear before the NADRA Zonal Verification Board/District Level Committee (DLC), which were ordered to decide their cases within one month after providing a personal hearing. The Court further held that any aggrieved person may file an appeal before the Federal Government under Section 18(3) of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000. Tagline "The NADRA Ordinance, 2000 provides a complete mechanism for CNIC verification and cancellation; courts should allow statutory forums to decide nationality disputes before exercising constitutional jurisdiction." ORDER; MUHAMMAD ASIF, J-. By this common order, I intend to dispose of the above-referred petitions, as identical questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions. The ephemeral facts moved forward through memos of the petitions are that respondents have digitally impounded the CNIC of the petitioner Abdul Qadir, and have blocked the CNIC of the petitioner Mst. Nafees Gul. They have refused to unblock the same, hence the instant petition. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that initially, the CNICs were issued to petitioners; however, subsequently, respondents have digitally impounded the CNIC of the petitioner Abdul Qadir, and have blocked the CNIC of the petitioner Mst. Nafees Gul without any just cause or reason. Per learned counsel, the respondents do not have the authority under the law to impound/block the CNICs of the petitioners and this act of the respondents is illegal; that National Database and Registration Authority (“NADRA”)/respondent No.02 acted…