PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has declared that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has no lawful authority to interfere with the international travel of a citizen of Pakistan possessing valid travel documents, unless authorised by law.

A bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Babar Sattar accepted a petition filed by a student, challenging his off-loading by the FIA officials from a flight to Turkiye, where he was given admission in a university.

In its 10-page detailed judgement, the bench discussed the powers assigned to FIA under different laws.

“In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold and declare that FIA has no lawful authority to interfere with the international travel of a citizen of Pakistan possessing valid travel documents, including a valid passport and visa, unless such interference is authorised by law and is founded upon relevant material establishing circumstances within the scope of that authority,” it ruled.

Bench rules FIA can’t interfere with travel of citizens unless it is authorised by law

The bench declared that any restraint must satisfy the conditions prescribed by the governing law and served the purpose for which the power had been conferred. “The mere existence of an administrative SOP or internal practice cannot, in itself, confer a power which the parent statute does not provide,” it added.

The bench directed that a copy of the judgement should be transmitted to federal interior secretary as well as to the FIA director general, for information, compliance and necessary guidance to relevant immigration authorities.

The bench also ruled that the off-loading of a passenger possessing valid travel documents, on a ground extraneous to the law or otherwise unsupported by lawful authority, might expose the relevant immigration officer to appropriate legal consequences, including a civil action for recovery of compensation.

“In appropriate cases, this court, while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, may also consider awarding compensation to a passenger, who has suffered loss on account of an unlawful or unauthorised restraint upon his right to travel,” the bench observed.

“In the present case, however, being a case of first impression, we deem it appropriate to exercise restraint in awarding compensation, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has undoubtedly suffered financial and mental loss on account of the unauthorised act of his off-loading by the respondents,” the bench maintained.

Advocates Mohammad Ali and Fayaz Ahmad appeared for the petitioner, Yaseen Khan, and stated that their client had secured admission in four-year bachelor of computer engineering programme at Istanbul Topkapi University, Turkiye.

They said that the petitioner was granted a Turkish study visa after which he purchased an airline ticket. However, they said that in an illegal manner the immigration authorities at Peshawar’s Bacha Khan International Airport on Aug 10, 2026, stopped and off-loaded him.

A deputy director of FIA appeared along with an assistant attorney general and stated that the agency was entrusted with functions under Emigration Ordinance, 1979, as well as offences under Passport Act, 1974.

They stated that the FIA officers regulated the exit of passengers in the public interest, particularly in view of complaints received from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Türkiye regarding Pakistani citizens, who travelled abroad and were subsequently found involved in criminal activities, or were deported on account of criminal acts or overstaying their visas.

They said that several Pakistani citizens were deported from Turkiye through a special flight on June 9 and June 10 in the current year.

The bench observed: “Possession of a valid passport and visa does not exempt a passenger from lawful immigration scrutiny; however, the power to scrutinise documents and prevent unlawful departure cannot be enlarged into an unrestricted power to determine academic suitability for education abroad.”

“Consequently, while the State unquestionably has the power and responsibility to regulate the departure of its citizens in accordance with law, that power must be exercised upon relevant grounds and within the limits of the authority conferred by law. Administrative discretion, an internal practice or an SOP cannot, by itself, create disqualification unsupported by the governing law,” the bench pointed out.

“In the present case, the reasons advanced by the concerned officials, namely, that the petitioner had allegedly low academic grades and a substantial study gap and had failed to satisfy them regarding his capacity to pursue the proposed course of education, are matters which fall beyond the lawful remit of FIA, in the absence of any statutory provision conferring such authority upon it,” the court declared.

The power to regulate international travel is undoubtedly a matter of public importance; however, its exercise must remain anchored in law. Administrative convenience, generalised concerns arising from the conduct of other travellers, or the subjective assessment by an officer of the genuineness or suitability of the stated purpose of travel cannot, by themselves, furnish lawful authority to curtail the constitutionally protected liberty of a citizen to travel abroad.

“The deportation lists and complaints relied upon may justify vigilance and verification against unlawful migration, but they do not establish that this petitioner intends to violate the law,” the bench ruled.

“Off-loading a passenger at the airport, particularly moments before boarding, constitutes a serious interference with personal liberty and may entail substantial financial loss, reputational harm and mental distress.”

“Its consequences extend beyond the cancellation of a journey: it may disrupt educational or professional commitments, defeat time-sensitive arrangements and expose the passenger to humiliation, uncertainty and disrespect. The characterisation of such action as preventive does not diminish its gravity or relieve the authorities of their obligation to act lawfully, fairly and proportionately,” the bench maintained.

Published in Dawn, October 12th, 2026