• Holds that citizenship matters fall under Pakistan Citizenship Act, Nadra laws
• Allows Nadra petition against lower court judgements

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that civil courts cannot directly entertain suits regarding the determination of Pakistani citizenship where the matter falls within the jurisdiction of authorities established under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and the Nadra laws.

Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani issued the verdict while allowing a civil revision petition filed by the National Database and Registration Authority challenging judgements of two lower courts passed in favour of Khalid Khan and another respondent.

Nadra had blocked the Computerised National Identity Cards of the respondents after declaring them to be in the “alien” category.

Later, the matter of the respondents was referred to a Joint Verification Committee, comprising the Special Branch, Intelligence Bureau and ISI, for further verification of their national status and that of their family members. Their status could not be verified as Pakistani nationals, though the respondents succeeded in obtaining Pakistani CNICs despite their alleged ineligibility and later filed the suit.

Counsel for the respondents contended that both lower courts in Sialkot had concurrently declared his clients Pakistani citizens and that it was their inalienable right to receive CNICs from Nadra. He said there was no evidence to demonstrate that the respondents belonged to the alien category.

Justice Kayani observed that during and after the Afghan war, many refugees came to Pakistan and managed to obtain NICs or CNICs and changed their identities despite being refugees or Afghan citizens.

Citing details from the inquiry report, the judge noted that officials had interviewed the father of the respondents, who claimed that he was born in Mohmand Agency in 1964 and later settled in Gujranwala.

Surprisingly, the respondents’ father was not aware of when and where his father had died. Similarly, the judge noted, he was also unaware of details regarding his brothers and sisters.

Justice Kayani observed that all these facts created suspicion, adding that the inquiry report required technical evidence from the respondents’ side to dispel the allegation that they belonged to the alien category.

He said the respondents were under an obligation to discharge their onus on the basis of any public record prior to 1979, including a birth certificate, CNIC/NIC, passport, government job document or matriculation certificate, to demonstrate that their father was born in Pakistan before 1979 and that he and his family members were registered in Pakistan as Pakistani citizens.

“If there is no such document, then they are to be treated as being in the alien category. Surp­risingly, both the courts below have not considered this aspect,” Justice Kayani maintained.

He said it was not a simple case in which the Joint Verification Committee’s report could be disregarded, especially when the inquiry had been conducted by officials of the ISI, Nadra and police authorities and no justiciable answer was given by the father of the respondents.

The judge said the respondents and their family members could not be verified as Pakistani nationals and had succeeded in obtaining Pakistani CNICs despite being ineligible. He regretted that both the trial court and the appellate court had not considered the relevant facts and documents produced by Nadra.

Justice Kayani observed that citizenship disputes involving issues such as dual nationality, citizenship by birth, descent, naturalisation or deprivation of citizenship were not merely matters of correction of Nadra records but involved the determination of legal status under the citizenship law.

However, the judge clarified that the exclusion of civil jurisdiction did not mean that actions of statutory authorities were beyond judicial scrutiny.

He observed that the high court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 remained available if an authority acted without lawful authority, violated mandatory legal provisions, denied due process, acted mala fide or infringed fundamental rights.

Published in Dawn, June 24th, 2026