PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has set aside the imposition of a travel ban by the federal government on two residents of Kurram tribal district declaring it illegal, and allowed them to travel out of the country on visa.

A bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Farah Jamshed accepted separate petitions by residents Irfan Haider and Iqbal Hussain, whose names were placed in the Provisional National Identification List (PNIL) and Passport Control List (PCL) respectively after they were “blacklisted” by the security agencies.

About petitioner Irfan Haider, the Federal Investigation Agency claimed that he had been placed in PNIL on the recommendations of security agencies, which claimed that he was affiliated with the proscribed Zainabyoun Brigade.

Similarly, the FIA claimed that petitioner Iqbal Hussain was in the PCL as he had been deported from Iran on account of overstaying there.

Mehmood Ali Turi, lawyer for both petitioners, said that his clients intended to travel to Qatar for work.

He said that petitioner Irfan Haider was granted a work visa by the Qatar government in 2018 and after that, he visited Pakistan from Qatar on a number of occasions.

Similarly, he said that the second petitioner was also given a work visa by the Qatar government, but as his name was placed on the PCL, his visa expired.

“The allegation against petitioner Irfan Haider is that he belongs to a proscribed organisation. However, the allegation is not supported by any document. More particularly, the facts of the case as stated above are clear that he has been present in the State of Qatar since 2018 on a work visa. Both petitioners are not nominated in any criminal case, so on the basis of absurd allegations, their travelling abroad cannot be restricted,” the bench ruled.

It added that it was a citizen’s fundamental right to travel abroad in line with Articles 2A, 4, 9, 15 and 25 of the Constitution, 1973.

“The right to travel is one of the most valued and cherished fundamental human rights in all civilised societies, perhaps next only to the right to life and personal liberty,” it ruled.

The court declared that denial of the right to travel, like deprivation of the right to personal liberty, would put an end or substantially abridge several other rights of individuals.

It added that the right to travel, in its generic sense, comprehended not only the right to domestic

travel but also the right to international travel, which, in turn, was comprehensive enough to include the right to leave one’s country, the right to visit foreign countries and the right to return to one’s country.

In the eight-page detailed judgement, the bench discussed the relevant provisions of the Passport Act, 1974, and the Passport and Visa Manual, 2006.

It observed that Section 8 of the Passport Act stipulated that the passport was the property of the federal government and may, by order, required the citizen to return it or otherwise cancel, impound or confiscate it.

The bench, however, declared that before passing any order, it was further stipulated under sub-section 2 of Section 8 of the Act that before making any such order, the federal government should give a notice in writing to the person concerned to show cause against it unless, in the case of impounding, the matter was of such nature that immediate action was required.

Published in Dawn, August 9th, 2025