Court Rules Against Passport Restriction on Valid Travel Documents

Notably, the Islamabad High Court has declared unconstitutional a provision of the Passport Rules, 2021, that allowed a citizen's name to be placed on the Passport Control List on the recommendation of administration agencies or departments without identifying a competent authority or providing legal safeguards.

Key points

• It set aside the agency's January 26, 2026 order and declared the petitioner's placement on the PCL on December 24, 2024, unlawful and of no legal effect.
• According to the judgment, his name was placed on the PCL on December 24, 2024, on the recommendation of NCB-INTERPOL, forwarded by the FIA's Assistant Director, Immigration Wing.
• Add ProPakistani to Preferred Sources and see more of our stories in Google Search and Top Stories.
• Saudi Arabia Announces New Final Exit Rules for Domestic Workers.
• According to The court, rule 22(2) refers to individuals whose passport facilities have been refused, whereas Moinuddin had never been refused a passport.

Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, in a detailed judgment, declared the second limb of Rule 22(2)(b) ultra vires the Passports Act, 1974, and Articles 4, 9, 10A and 15 of the Constitution.

Notably, the ruling came on a petition filed by Moinuddin. This person was offloaded at Islamabad International Airport on December 18, 2025, while travelling to Saudi Arabia for Umrah. He had a valid Pakistani passport, a valid Saudi visa and a confirmed air ticket, but no reason was given for stopping him. NHMP Reopens Major Motorway for All Traffic.

According to The court, his passport had never been impounded, confiscated, cancelled or inactivated, nor had its issuance or renewal been refused. The main matter was whether the authorities had the power to stop a citizen from travelling on a valid passport.

According to the judgment, his name was placed on the PCL on December 24, 2024, on the recommendation of NCB-INTERPOL, forwarded by the FIA's Assistant Director, Immigration Wing. The move followed his deportation from the UK after his conviction for causing death by dangerous driving while under the influence of alcohol. He had already served a three-year sentence.

According to The court, he had completed his sentence and been deported, while no criminal case, inquiry or investigation was pending against him in Pakistan. He was neither a proclaimed offender nor subject to an extradition request.

Notably, the IHC rejected the passport authorities' justification that his name should remain on the PCL since his conduct had affected Pakistan's reputation and that the placement was meant to act as a deterrent.

It remarked those grounds were not identified in the Passports Act or the Passport Rules. Rule 21, the court observed, deals with refusal of a passport and does not authorise restraint of a citizen who already holds a valid passport. Motorway Police Launches Action Against High-Beam Lights.

According to Justice Minhas, refusal of a passport and prohibition of travel are two separate powers. He continued that the function of the relevant division and directorate general to prepare and maintain the PCL is administrative and does not itself confer power to decide whose name may be placed on the list.

According to The court, rule 22(2) refers to individuals whose passport facilities have been refused, whereas Moinuddin had never been refused a passport. According to It additionally, rule 22(2)(a) specifically names the extra secretary of the relevant division as the authority competent to place and remove names in Category A, while clause (b) names no such authority.

Meanwhile, the IHC held that neither the directorate general of FIA nor NCB-INTERPOL had the authority to place the petitioner's name on the PCL in the circumstances of the case.

It additionally stated the impugned order merely referred to approval by the "competent authority" without identifying that authority, the legal provision applied or the material on which the decision was based.

Meanwhile, the court discovered that the provision offered no competent authority, objective criteria, notice, hearing, reasons or communication of the decision, meaning a citizen could learn of the restriction only after being ceased at the immigration counter.

Meanwhile, the judgment held that the second limb of Rule 22(2)(b), allowing PCL placement on the recommendation of administration agencies or departments, went beyond Sections 8 and 13 of the Passports Act and was inconsistent with the Constitution.

According to On the arguments of "international reputation" and "deterrence, " the court, since the petitioner had completed his sentence and no proceedings were pending, the restraint had no live and proximate nexus with a present necessity.

Meanwhile, the court additionally expressed displeasure over the authorities' failure to comply with an earlier order and directed them to decide the petitioner's application within one week through a speaking and well-reasoned order. Saudi Arabia Announces New Final Exit Rules for Domestic Workers.

Meanwhile, the court further directed the authorities to remove his name from the PCL within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment and not to interfere with his lawful foreign travel on the basis of the impugned placement.

It clarified that the competent authority could still take action under the law after after the prescribed procedure. Copies of the judgment were sent to the Interior Secretary, Immigration and Passports DG and FIA DG for compliance. Stay Connected with ProPakistani. Obtain the latest news and stories wherever you prefer. Follow on Google Discover.

Add as a preferredSource on Google Follow on Google News Join WhatsApp.

For now, court Rules Against Passport Restriction on Valid Travel Documents remains the part of the story worth watching, and further updates are likely as more details are confirmed.