Islamabad High Court strikes down travel-restriction provision

The brief

Context

Pakistan's Passport Control List (PCL) is a government mechanism used to stop individuals from obtaining or renewing passports or from travelling abroad. Under the Passport Rules, 2021, names could be added to the list merely on the recommendation of government agencies or departments — a route rights advocates said lacked transparency, due process and judicial oversight. A citizen, Moin-ud-Din, challenged the rule in the Islamabad High Court after being offloaded at Islamabad airport while flying to Saudi Arabia for Umrah. The court has now declared that specific provision ultra vires the Passports Act, 1974 and the Constitution of 1973.

Key facts

• The Islamabad High Court struck down the second limb of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021, which allowed PCL placement on the recommendation of government agencies or departments.
• The provision was declared ultra vires the Passports Act, 1974 and the Constitution of 1973 and "of no legal effect".
• The detailed verdict was issued on Saturday by Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas of the IHC.
• Petitioner Moin-ud-Din was offloaded at Islamabad airport in Dec. 2025 while travelling to Saudi Arabia for Umrah, despite holding a valid Pakistani passport, a Saudi visa and a confirmed air ticket.
• No reason was communicated to Din for stopping him from travelling, and his passport had never been impounded, confiscated, cancelled or inactivated, nor its issuance or renewal refused.
• Rule 22(2) covers those refused passport facilities for involvement in "anti-state activities", those whose foreign visit is considered prejudicial to State interest, or whose travel is banned on security grounds.
• The normal period of retention on the PCL is five years under the Passports Rules, 2021, extendable if the referring department or agency recommends further retention with full justification.
• Din's name was placed on the PCL in Dec. 2024 on the recommendation of National Central Bureau-INTERPOL, forwarded by Pakistan's Federal Investigation Agency, after his deportation from the UK following a conviction for causing death by dangerous driving, for which he served a three-year sentence.

Timeline

1. 1974Passports Act enacted in Pakistan, the parent statute under which the Passport Rules are framed.
2. 1973Constitution of Pakistan adopted; the court tests the rule against it.
3. 2021Passport Rules, 2021 notified, providing for the Passport Control List and allowing placement on agency recommendation.
4. Dec. 2024Moin-ud-Din's name placed on the PCL on the recommendation of National Central Bureau-INTERPOL, forwarded by the FIA, after his UK deportation.
5. Dec. 2025Din offloaded at Islamabad airport while travelling to Saudi Arabia for Umrah, with valid passport, visa and ticket.
6. This yearDin moved the Islamabad High Court challenging the provision.
7. Saturday (date not stated in the source)IHC issues detailed verdict striking down the provision as ultra vires.

Who has a stake

• Moin-ud-Din, petitioner — Was stopped from travelling for Umrah without reasons despite a valid passport, visa and ticket; his PCL listing dated from Dec. 2024.
• Islamabad High Court / Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas — Adjudicated whether an executive agency can restrain travel on a valid passport; held refusal of a passport and prohibition of travel are distinct powers.
• Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) — Forwarded the INTERPOL-linked recommendation that led to Din's PCL placement; its recommendation route is now curtailed.
• National Central Bureau-INTERPOL (Pakistan) — Originating body of the recommendation for the PCL entry following Din's UK deportation.
• Government division concerned and Directorate General of Immigration and Passports — Mandated under Rule 22(2) to prepare and maintain the PCL; must now operate without the struck-down recommendation clause.
• Rights advocates and ordinary travellers — Had criticised the PCL mechanism for lacking transparency, due process and judicial oversight; stand to gain procedural safeguards.

Why it matters

The ruling limits an executive power that could bar citizens from leaving the country without notice, reasons or judicial scrutiny, insisting that withholding a travel document and arresting movement are legally distinct acts. For a mechanism that normally keeps names listed for five years and can extend beyond, the absence of due process had real consequences, as the petitioner's offloading showed. It is a notable example of a constitutional court reading subordinate rules down to their parent statute.