ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court has declared unconstitutional a provision of the Passport Rules, 2021, that allowed authorities to place a citizen’s name on the Passport Control List on the recommendation of government agencies or departments without identifying a competent authority or providing legal safeguards.
Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, in a detailed judgment, held that the second part of Rule 22(2)(b) was beyond the scope of the Passports Act, 1974, and inconsistent with Articles 4, 9, 10A and 15 of the Constitution. The court declared the provision to be without legal effect.
The ruling came on a petition filed by Moinuddin, who was stopped from boarding a flight at Islamabad International Airport on Dec. 18, 2025, while travelling to Saudi Arabia to perform Umrah.
Moinuddin had a valid Pakistani passport, a valid Saudi visa and a confirmed air ticket, but immigration authorities did not tell him why he was being prevented from leaving the country, according to the judgment.
The court said his passport had never been impounded, confiscated, canceled or inactivated, and that the government had neither refused to issue nor renew his passport. The central question, therefore, was whether authorities could bar a citizen from travelling abroad despite the citizen holding a valid passport.
Court records showed that Moinuddin’s name had been placed on the PCL on Dec. 24, 2024, following a recommendation from NCB-Interpol forwarded by an assistant director of the Federal Investigation Agency’s immigration wing.
The recommendation followed Moinuddin’s deportation from the United Kingdom after he was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving while under the influence of alcohol. He had served a three-year prison sentence.
Justice Minhas noted that Moinuddin had completed his sentence and had been deported. No criminal case, inquiry or investigation was pending against him in Pakistan, the court said. He was not a proclaimed offender and was not facing an extradition request.
Passport authorities had defended retaining his name on the PCL by arguing that his conduct had damaged Pakistan’s international reputation and that the restriction was intended to serve as a deterrent.
The court rejected those arguments, saying neither ground appeared in the Passports Act or the Passport Rules.
Rule 21 concerns the refusal of a passport and does not authorize authorities to restrain a person who already holds a valid travel document, the judgment said.
“The refusal of a passport and the prohibition of travel are two separate exercises of power,” Justice Minhas wrote.
The court said the authority of the relevant division and directorate general to prepare and maintain the PCL was administrative in nature and did not, by itself, give officials the power to determine whose name could be added to the list.
It also noted that Rule 22(2) applies to people whose passport facilities have been refused. Moinuddin had never been denied a passport, the court said.
The judgment further noted that Rule 22(2)(a) specifically identifies the additional secretary of the relevant division as the official authorized to add or remove names in Category A. However, Rule 22(2)(b) did not identify any corresponding competent authority.
The court ruled that neither the FIA directorate general nor NCB-Interpol had the authority to place Moinuddin’s name on the PCL under the circumstances of the case.
It said the order placing his name on the list merely stated that it had been approved by the “competent authority” without identifying that authority, the legal basis for the action or the evidence on which the decision was made.
The provision offered no objective criteria, notice, hearing, reasons or means of communicating the decision to the affected citizen, the court said. As a result, a person could discover the travel restriction only after being stopped at an immigration counter.
The court held that the second portion of Rule 22(2)(b), which permitted placement on the PCL on the recommendation of government agencies or departments, exceeded Sections 8 and 13 of the Passports Act and violated constitutional protections.
Addressing the government’s reliance on Pakistan’s international reputation and deterrence, the court said Moinuddin’s completed sentence and the absence of pending proceedings meant there was no “live and proximate nexus with a present necessity” to restrict his travel.
“Gravity does not supply jurisdiction,” the court said.
The court also expressed displeasure over the authorities’ failure to comply with an earlier order and directed them to decide Moinuddin’s application within one week through a speaking and well-reasoned order.
Justice Minhas set aside the agency’s Jan. 26, 2026, order and declared Moinuddin’s placement on the PCL on Dec. 24, 2024, unlawful and without legal effect.
The court directed authorities to remove his name from the PCL within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment and barred them from interfering with his lawful foreign travel on the basis of the invalidated placement.
The ruling said authorities could still take any action permitted by law, provided they follow the prescribed legal procedure. Copies of the judgment were sent to the interior secretary, the director general of immigration and passports, and the FIA director general for compliance.
