MUHAMMAD AKHTAR MENGAL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, C.J.--- The Petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution") with the following prayer:
"1. Declare that the inclusion of the Petitioner's name in the Provisional National Identification List (PNIL) is illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority, in violation of the Constitution, and of no legal effect;
2. Direct the Respondents to forthwith delete/remove the Petitioner's name from the PNIL and to ensure that no impediment or restriction is imposed upon his lawful travel, either within or outside Pakistan, in the absence of due process of law, including notice, reasoned justification, and opportunity of hearing;
3. Issue a permanent injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents and subordinates from placing the Petitioner's name on any travel restriction list, including but not limited to the PNIL and Exit Control List (ECL), without prior compliance with the mandatory requirements of law, policy, and the principles of natural justice;
4. Direct the respondents to deliver timely and monthly disbursement of stipends to petitioners, and consider revision of the same to match national standards;
5. Grant any other relief deemed just and appropriate in the circumstances.
2. As per the contents of the petition, the petitioner, holder of a confirmed air ticket (Seat No.1B) of Fly Dubai, was scheduled to travel on 20th July 2025 to Dubai for urgent medical examination and treatment. Upon arrival at Quetta International Airport, the petitioner was arbitrarily restrained from boarding the flight by the airport authorities on account of his name being placed on the Provisional National Identity List (PNIL). The petitioner avers that he was not issued any notice, nor was any reason communicated to him in advance. He asserts that he has not been involved in any criminal activity, nor is there a criminal case against him that warrants such a restriction. Aggrieved by the arbitrary denial of his fundamental right to travel, the petitioner approached this Court under its constitutional jurisdiction.
3. On 29-07-2025, the petition was admitted for regular hearing, and notices were issued to the respondents. Mr. Muhammad Fareed Dogar, Additional Attorney General, present in the Court waived notice and received a copy of the petition and appended documents in the Court, who was directed to file parawise comments on the next date of hearing.
4. On 04-08-2025, the last and final opportunity was provided to official respondents to file the para-wise comments. In pursuance whereof, respondents Nos.1 and 4 submitted their parawise comments on 26-08-2025, while DAG, along with Assistant Director (Legal) FIA, sought another opportunity to file comments, but they did not file the parawise comments/reply on the successive date of hearing; as such, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 side was closed.
Today again, learned DAG and Additional A.G. representing respondents Nos. 2 and 3 did not file any reply and requested a short adjournment, which is declined. The conduct of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 indicates that they are deliberately not filing a reply and want to prolong the matter; as such, this Court is left with no other option but to decide the matter on its merits based on the available record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's name on the PNIL is without lawful authority, violates Articles 4, 9, 14, 15, 18, and 25 of the Constitution, and is devoid of due process; that the PNIL lacks statutory backing and is not governed by any transparent, codified, or judicially reviewable procedure, and that such executive actions amount to overreach; that neither notice nor opportunity of hearing was provided, thereby offending the principles of natural justice, particularly as protected under Article 10- A; that the PNIL, introduced initially as a time-bound and exceptional mechanism, cannot be used arbitrarily or as an alternative to the Exit Control List (ECL) without statutory cover. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case titled "Sheikh Shan Ilahi v. Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Interior, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad, and 6 others" (PLD 2023 Lahore 359).
6. Conversely, learned Additional Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the inclusion of names in the PNIL is based on intelligence and administrative inputs concerning national interest and security; however, on the verbal directions of Provincial Government, the petitioner's name is placed in the PNIL; that the PNIL is an essential tool for identity verification and to prevent persons involved in fraudulent or suspicious activities from leaving the country prematurely.
The learned Law Officer, NADRA, relied on the record.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Perusal of record reveals that the official respondents were unable to produce any statutory framework, written approval, or show-cause notice issued to the petitioner prior to inclusion of his name on the PNIL. Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to move freely throughout Pakistan and to travel abroad, subject only to "reasonable restrictions imposed by law." The term "by law" necessitates a statute or codified rule, which was demonstrably absent in this case. No notice, hearing, or reasoned order was issued to the petitioner. The denial of liberty without due process renders the impugned action unconstitutional and void ab initio. The respondents failed to cite any legislative instrument that empowers NADRA, FIA, or any other authority to impose travel restrictions under a mechanism known as "PNIL." Even assuming the PNIL operates under some internal policy, the failure to follow its own Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), such as issuing notices, conducting reviews, and obtaining approvals, demonstrates arbitrary conduct. Admittedly, the petitioner has no pending criminal cases, and no material was presented to this Court suggesting that he poses a threat to national security, public interest, or law enforcement agencies. Selectively targeting individuals without a uniform set of criteria violates the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law. In the event of a person's involvement in a criminal case, a comprehensive method is provided under the law for placing their name in the ECL and PNIL.
9. Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution) gives the right to a citizen to enjoy the protection of the law and to be treated in accordance with the law, which is an inalienable right of every citizen. Furthermore, it has been prescribed that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation, or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with the law. The courts in Pakistan have protected the fundamental rights of citizens conferred by the Constitution. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Pakistan Broadcasters Association and others v. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority and others reported in PLD 2016 SC 692. The relevant part read as follows:
"Undoubtedly no one can be deprived of his fundamental rights. Such rights being incapable of being divested or abridged. The legislative powers conferred on the State functionaries can be exercised only to regulate these rights through reasonable restrictions and that too as may be mandated by the law and not otherwise. The authority wielding statutory powers conferred on it must act reasonably (emphasis supplied) and within the scope of the powers so conferred"
10. The inclusion of the petitioner's name in the PNIL without notice, lawful justification, or due process is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. It constitutes a violation of Articles 4, 9, 10-A, 14, 15, 18, and 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
For the above reasons, the Constitution Petition No. 1149 of 2025 is accepted; consequently, the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Provisional National Identification List (PNIL) is declared to be unlawful, unconstitutional, and without lawful authority. The respondents are directed to forthwith remove/delete the petitioner's name from the PNIL or any other travel restriction list unless and until due process in accordance with law is followed. There is no order as to costs.
UN/128/Bal. Petition allowed.