PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has declared the imposition of international travel restrictions on any citizen without issuance of a prior show cause notice illegal and stopped the government and its relevant departments from continuing with that practice.

While accepting around 36 petitions, mostly by inhabitants of Kurram tribal district, against different travel and passport control restrictions, abench consisting of Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbaldeclared: “The respondents, and all governmental agencies and departments under their purview, are permanently restrained from placing any citizen on a travel ban list or imposing any restriction on their freedom of movement without issuing a prior show cause notice and a reasoned order.”

“This mandatory procedural requirement can only be deviated from in cases of extreme urgency involving national security, where such notice must nevertheless be issued within 24 hours of the restriction being imposed,” the bench ruled in a 36-page detailed judgement.

It also declared illegal the use of ‘Provisional National Identification List (PNIL)’ and a ‘Blacklist’ to restrict international travel of an individual, and ruled that by creating these lists the executive had effectively legislated a parallel legal system bypassing the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance.

Accepts pleas against multiple travel bans, also declares ‘blacklist’, ‘PNIL’ illegal

The bench held that no travel restriction could lawfully exist without either a prior or, in cases of extreme urgency, a contemporaneous show cause notice, which must then be followed by a comprehensive reasoned order.

It ruled that the PNIL and Blacklist were not valid substitutes for the ECL as exclusively governed by the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, and the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010.

The court directed the respondents including the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) that the category of petitioners, who had been placed on the Blacklist, PNIL or Passport Control List (PCL) should be immediately removed from these lists and they should be allowed to travel freely unless a fresh order was passed placing them on the ECL strictly in accordance with the 1981 Ordinance and its associated rules.

The bench ruled that the power to impound or confiscate passports lies solely with the federal government under Section 8 of the Passports Act, 1974, and not with the FIA.

It directed the FIA to return any passports seized from the petitioners within 15 days from the date of this order.

“Furthermore, the federal government is directed to decide any pending review representations filed by these petitioners under Section 3 of the ECL Ordinance within a period of 15 days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, through a speaking order that specifically addresses whether the grounds for placement meet the criteria set forth in Rule 2 of the ECL Rules.”

It warned that failure to decide those representations within the stipulated time frame would result in the deemed removal of the petitioners’ names from the Exit Control List.”

The bench also issued directives regarding those categories of petitioners who are currently abroad and the Pakistani diplomatic missions had refused to renew their passports; or, they are long-term expatriate workers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar and have been facing imminent loss of their employment because of direct consequences of their names appearing in the ‘Blacklist”, PNIL or ECL.

The court ordered the Directorate of Immigration & Passports to process and renew the passports of those categories of the petitioners.

“The mere existence of a name on a non-statutory ‘Blacklist’ or ‘PNIL’ shall not be considered a valid or lawful ground for refusal. The processing must adhere strictly to the exhaustive grounds for refusal enumerated in Rule 21 of the Passports Rules, 2021, and the mandatory procedural safeguards of Section 8(2) of the Passports Act, 1974, without making renewal contingent upon any extraneous ‘security clearance’ not mentioned in the relevant statutory framework.”

Advocate Mehmood Ali Turi appeared for the petitioners and highlighted the illegalities committed by different government agencies including the FIA while placing multiple restrictions on the petitioners including Wilayat Ali and 35 others.

The judgement, authored by Justice Sahibzada Asadullah, discussed in detail provisions of the Constitution, Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, Passport Act, 1974, Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules and superior court judgements.

The bench pointed out that the provisions of the ECL Ordinance and the Rules didn’t mention, authorise or recognise any parallel “Blacklist” or “PNIL” maintained by the FIA or Immigration authorities.

The bench observed that by using the PNIL or Blacklist, authorities often restrained citizens for reasons that would be summarily rejected under the ECL Rules. “In other words, this constitutes a ‘fraud on the statute,’” the bench opined.

“The PNIL and Blacklist operate in secrecy; citizens are often stopped at the airport without prior service of any order, rendering the statutory right of review nugatory,” the court ruled.

It further pointed out: “If the Legislature intended for the FIA or Immigration authorities to have summary powers to stop citizens for 30 days or more without a formal ECL order, it would have amended the Ordinance to include such a provision. It did not.”

The court observed that a restriction on movement based solely on the ‘PNIL’ or ‘Blacklist’ without notice constituted a ‘fraud on the statute’” as it was an indirect attempt to stop a citizen without meeting the threshold of Rule 2, which the law didn’t permit.

Regarding the petitioners in categories III and IV, many of whom are overseas and have been denied passport renewal based on ‘agency flags’ or ‘security checks,’ the bench ruled that the Directorate of Immigration & Passports had erred in law.

“The Directorate is a creature of the Passport Act; it is not a security agency but a facilitation body,” the bench observed.

“Moreover, the manner in which these petitioners were placed on the PCL or PNIL constitutes a ‘surprise’ administrative attack. These citizens, while lawfully residing abroad, were placed on restrictive lists without a shred of prior intimation.”

“They only discovered their status when they attempted to renew their expiring documents while contacting the Pakistani embassy, effectively finding themselves trapped and stateless. This violates the fundamental principles of natural justice and Article 10-A of the Constitution,” the bench ruled.

The court pronounced that the right to travel abroad was subject only to “reasonable restrictions imposed by law” as envisaged by Article 15 of the Constitution and the Constitution didn’t authorise indefinite, secret, or unreviewable prohibitions.

“The FIA, as an investigative body, generates inputs for the ECL but is not vested with the authority to unilaterally impose travel bans or seize passports on its own motion. That power is explicitly reserved for the Federal Government under the ECL Ordinance and the Passport Act.”

The bench added that the ministry of interior, as the designated gatekeeper, must assume full ownership and responsibility for every name placed on any exit control list and it couldn’t merely hide behind generalised “agency reports or security flags”.

“If a citizen’s name is on such a list, the Ministry must be prepared to articulate and defend the specific, legally sound reasons for that restriction.”

The bench pointed out that the most insidious and disturbing characteristic of the ‘Blacklist’ and ‘PNIL’ regimes, which impacted all categories of petitioners, was their inherent secrecy.

“Petitioners were frequently kept in the dark about their placement on these lists until they were arbitrarily offloaded at airports or denied essential consular services abroad,” it declared.

Published in Dawn, February 27th, 2026