IHC strikes down rule allowing agencies to restrict foreign travel

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has declared unconstitutional a provision of the Passport Rules, 2021, that allowed government agencies and departments to recommend placing citizens’ names on the Passport Control List (PCL).

Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas issued the detailed judgement. He declared the second part of Rule 22(2)(b) beyond the authority granted under the Passports Act, 1974.

The court also ruled that the provision was inconsistent with Articles 4, 9, 10A and 15 of the Constitution.

The case was taken up after Moinuddin was stopped at Islamabad International Airport on December 18, 2025. He was travelling to Saudi Arabia for Umrah.

Moinuddin had a valid Pakistani passport. He also held a valid Saudi visa and a confirmed air ticket. However, authorities did not tell him why he was being stopped from travelling.

The court noted that his passport had never been cancelled, confiscated or impounded. Its issuance or renewal had also not been refused.

The judgement said the main question was whether an agency could restrict a citizen’s foreign travel when the person held a valid passport.

According to the court record, Moinuddin’s name was placed on the PCL on December 24, 2024. The action followed a recommendation from NCB-INTERPOL. The recommendation was forwarded by an FIA immigration official.

The matter was linked to his deportation from the United Kingdom. He had been convicted there for causing death by dangerous driving while under the influence of alcohol.

He had served a three-year sentence before being deported.

The court observed that Moinuddin had completed his sentence. No criminal case, inquiry or investigation was pending against him in Pakistan.

He was also not a proclaimed offender. No extradition request was pending against him.

The passport authorities had argued that keeping his name on the PCL was necessary because his conduct had damaged Pakistan’s international reputation. They also claimed that the restriction could act as a deterrent.

The IHC rejected these grounds. It observed that such reasons were not provided in the Passports Act or the Passport Rules.

Justice Minhas said refusing a passport and stopping a person from travelling were two separate matters. The court held that authorities could not use the PCL mechanism to restrict travel without clear legal authority.

The judgement also pointed out that the disputed rule did not clearly identify the authority competent to place a person’s name on the PCL.

The court held that neither the FIA directorate general nor NCB-INTERPOL had the required authority to place Moinuddin’s name on the list in the circumstances of the case.

The IHC further criticised the authorities for failing to explain who had approved the restriction. The order only referred to a “competent authority”.

It did not identify the authority concerned. It also failed to specify the legal provision used or the material on which the decision was based.

The court said the disputed provision lacked important legal safeguards. These included clear criteria, prior notice, an opportunity for a hearing, reasons for the decision and communication to the affected citizen.

As a result, a person could discover the travel restriction only after reaching the immigration counter.

The IHC declared the disputed part of Rule 22(2)(b) beyond Sections 8 and 13 of the Passports Act. It also declared the provision inconsistent with constitutional protections.

The court observed that Moinuddin had completed his sentence and faced no pending proceedings in Pakistan. Therefore, the continued travel restriction had no present legal justification.

The IHC also expressed displeasure over the authorities’ failure to comply with an earlier order.

It directed the authorities to decide Moinuddin’s application within one week through a detailed and reasoned order.

The court set aside the agency’s January 26, 2026 order. It also declared Moinuddin’s placement on the PCL on December 24, 2024, unlawful and without legal effect.

Authorities were directed to remove his name from the PCL within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgement.

They were also directed not to stop him from lawful foreign travel on the basis of the disputed PCL placement.

The court clarified that authorities could still take action where the law permits it. However, they would have to follow the prescribed legal procedure.