2026 P Cr. L J 580

 2026 P Cr. L J 580

[Islamabad]

Before Muhammad Asif, J

QASIM BIN MASOOD and 2 others---Petitioners

Versus

FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY through its Director General

FIA, Islamabad and another---Respondents

Writ Petition No. 1081 of 2025, decided on 15th September, 2025.

(a) Passports Rules, 2021---

----R. 22---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 15---Placing name on

Passport Control list (PCL)---Whether power to do so laid with

Federal Investigation Agency or Federal Government---Petitioners

were implicated in FIR registered under Ss.419, 420, 468, 471, 473,

109 & 34, P.P.C, read with Ss.36 & 37 of the Electronic Transactions

Ordinance and S.4 of Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010---Initially

they were admitted to bail, but were subsequently acquitted by the

District Court, however, the acquittal appeal filed against their

acquittal order was partly accepted and matter was remanded for

fresh decision, but in the post-remand proceedings, they were

convicted---On filing of appeal, this Court suspended the conviction

and sentence, and released the petitioners on bail---When the

petitionersattempted to travel abroad to perform Umrah, they were

stopped at the airport and informed that their names had been

placed on the blacklist/Passport Control List by the DG Immigration

& Passport on the recommendation of Federal Investigation Agency

(FIA)---Held: Right to travel formed an essential part of the

fundamental rights to life and liberty and could only be restricted

under a valid law enacted in the public interest---Any restraint on

movement must have lawful justification and could not be imposed

arbitrarily---Executive discretion must be exercised fairly,

reasonably and in good faith and within the bounds of law---

Administrative instructions or policies could not curtail

constitutional rights beyond statutory authority and mere pendency

of criminal proceedings was not sufficient to prohibit movement---

Restrictions such as blacklisting must be applied sparingly, after

application of mind and must not be indefinite or disproportionate--

-Executive must not act mechanically on departmental

recommendations---Placement on an exit or Passport Control List

could not be automatic upon registration of FIR or even upon

pendency of proceedings; if a person was on bail, released or not a

proclaimed offender, the authority must give cogent, specific reasons before curtailing his/her constitutional right to travel---

Suspension of sentence did not ipso facto amount to acquittal;

however, suspension neutralized theoperative effect of a conviction

for the time being and enlivened the petitioners' right to be treated

as persons entitled to procedural fairness---Even for persons who

stand convicted, any preventive restriction on fundamental rights

must have clear statutory backing and must be exercised after

application of mind and by giving reasons---Rules could not be used

in a mechanical fashion to perpetuate deprivation of a

constitutional right without review and without the administrative

authority stating cogent grounds---Absence of any record of

reconsideration of any fresh security assessment, or of any

contemporaneous reasons why the petitioners should continue to be

prevented from travelling, led the Court to the conclusion that the

placement on Passport Control List was not the result of an exercise

of reasoned discretion---Where the rule was invoked the authority

must showed that the case fell squarely within the categories

enumerated in the Rule; that the decision was not taken

mechanically, but after application of mind; that the restriction was

proportionate to the mischief sought to be prevented; and that the

person affected was given an opportunity to be heard, unless the

urgency of the circumstance rendered such hearing impracticable

and then the authority must nevertheless record reasons for not

giving such hearing---None of those safeguards were visible on the

record before this Court in respect of the petitioners---Rule 22(1)

contemplated that the Federal Government was vested with the

power to regulate departure and entry and the Division concerned

and Directorate General shall prepare and maintain the Passport

Control List; yet there was nothing on record to indicate that any

approval by the Federal Government, where required, hadbeen

obtained in relation to those entries, or that the competent Division

applied its mind to the matter---For reasons of good governance and

to avoid arbitraryexercise of power, entries on Passport Control List

could not be made or maintained in a clandestine, mechanical and

non-reviewable manner---Respondents had not produced any

material to show that the petitioners posed a continuing security

risk, which could not be addressed by less restrictive measures, for

instance, by conditional travel permission, surrendering of

passports to the Trial Court, or by Court-ordered restrictions

tailored to ensure presence for trial---Record showed that the

petitioners were on bail, their appeal was pending and their

conviction was suspended---Principal rationale advanced in support

of the Passport Control List entry (fear of absconsion) had not been

supported by evidence of any attempts to flee or of any threat to

national security---In the absence of such material, continuing the bar on travel was disproportionate---Constitutional petition was

allowed, in circumstances.

Federation of Pakistan v. General (Retd). Pervez Musharraf PLD 2016

SC 570; Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan PLD

1993 SC 473; Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan PLD

2007 SC 642; Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324;

Federal Government v. Ayyan Ali 2017 SCMR 1179; Sheikh Shan Ilahi v.

Federation of Pakistan PLD 2023 Lah. 359; Dada Amir Haider Khan s

case PLD 1987 SC 504; Wajid Shams-ud-Hassan v. Federation of

Pakistan PLD 1997 Lah. 617; Shabana Noor Ahmed v. DG Immigration

and Passport PLD 2019 Sindh 456; Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v.

Federation of Pakistan PLD 2019 Isl. 316 and Riaz Ahmed v.

Government of Pakistan PLD 2014 Isl. 29 rel.

(b) Passports Rules, 2021---

----R. 22---Placing name on Passport Control list (PCL)---Requirements

and guidelines---No person shall be placed on the Passport Control

List without a contemporaneous record of reasons showing

application of mind;wherever practicable a show-cause notice shall

be issued before placing a person on Passport Control List and an

opportunity of hearing he afforded; where emergency action is

taken without prior notice, reasons for omission of prior notice

must be recorded in writing and the matter must be reviewed

within a reasonable time; andperiodic review of entries on Passport

Control List must be undertaken to ensure no person is kept on the

list mechanically or indefinitely.

Raja Rizwan Abbasi for Petitioner.

Ms. Shaista Tabassum, A.A.G for the State.

Mohsin Afzal, A.D CCRC, Islamabad.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD ASIF, J.---Through the instant writ petition filed

under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of

Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution"), the petitioners have called in

question the action of Respondents Nos.1 and 2, whereby their names

were placed on the Blacklist/Passport Control List ("PCL"), restraining

them from travelling abroad; and have sought removal of their names

from that list.

2. Succinctly stated facts are that the petitioners, being IT

professionals and formerly employed with M/s Axact, Islamabad, were

implicated in FIR No.56 dated 07.06.2015 registered under Sections

419, 420, 468, 471, 473, 109 and 34 P.P.C read with Sections 36/37 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance and Section 4 of AMLA Act, 2010

with P.S. FIA Cyber Crime Circle, Islamabad. Initially they were

admitted to bail, but were subsequently acquitted by the learned

District and Sessions Judge (East), Islamabad, however, the acquittal

appeal filed against their acquittal order, was partly accepted and

matter was remanded for fresh decision, but in the post-remand

proceedings, they were convicted. On filing of appeal, this Court, vide

order dated 12.02.2025, suspended the conviction and sentence, and

released the petitioners on bail.

When the petitioners attempted to travel abroad to perform Umrah,

they were stopped at the airport and informed that their names had

been placed on the Blacklist/PCL by Respondent No.2 (DG Immigration

and Passport, Islamabad) on the recommendation of Respondent No.1

(FIA). Their representations to the concerned authorities for removal of

their names remained unheeded; hence this petition.

During pendency of this writ petition, vide order dated 23.06.2025

this Court granted time to the learned counsel for the petitioners to file

an appropriate application seeking permission to travel outside the

jurisdiction of the Court during the pendency of the appeal, and

adjourned the matter for today i.e. 15.09.2025. No such application was

filed by the petitioners, hence, this court having no other option but to

proceed and decide the petition on merits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that

impugned action of respondents, restraining the movement of

petitioners is discriminatory and violative of the provisions of the

Constitution, their fundamental rights have been jeopardized; act of

respondents by placing their names on PCL/Blacklist is unwarranted,

unlawful and illegal; that the conviction of the petitioners stands

suspended by this Court and they enjoy presumption of innocence

pending appeal; therefore treating them as convicts for the purpose of

blacklisting is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. Learned counsel further

contends that neither any show-cause notice was issued, nor any

speaking order was passed prior to placing their names in the PCL. The

learned counsel accordingly prayed for the removal of the petitioners'

names from the PCL/Blacklist.

5. Conversely, learned Assistant Attorney General representing the

respondents contends that the petitioners were convicted of serious

offences and their names were placed on the PCL in terms of Rule

22(2)(b) and (c) of the Passport Rules, 2021 on the recommendation of

FIA. It is submitted that suspension of sentence does not amount to

acquittal and until the appeal is finally decided the finding of guilt by

the trial court subsists in law; consequently the action of the

respondents is taken to prevent flight and to protect public interest and national security. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the instant

petition.

6. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as

well as learned AAG have been heard and the record perused with

their able assistance.

7. Respondent No.2 in parawise comments has stated that the names

of the petitioners were placed on the PCL on 24.08.2018 on the

recommendation of FIA, Islamabad conveyed vide letter dated

06.07.2018. It is specifically stated in the comments that such

placement was made in terms of Rule 22(2)(b) and (c) of the Passport

Rules, 2021.

8. Rule 22 of the Passport Rules, 2021 deals with the Passport Control

List. The Rule contemplates two categories, Category "A" for persons

involved in anti-state activities or whose travel is prejudicial to State

interest, and Category "B" for persons refused passport facilities under

the Rules or placed on recommendation of government agencies or

departments. In this scheme the Federal Government is the repository

of power to regulate entry and exit and the Division concerned and

Directorate General are to prepare and maintain the PCL in accordance

with the Rule.

9. It is found that the right to travel forms an essential part of the

fundamental rights to life and liberty and can only be restricted under

a valid law enacted in the public interest. Any restraint on movement

must have lawful justification and cannot be imposed arbitrarily;

executive discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably and in good

faith and within the bounds of law. Administrative instructions or

policies cannot curtail constitutional rights beyond statutory authority,

and mere pendency of criminal proceedings is not sufficient to

prohibit movement; restrictions such as blacklisting must be applied

sparingly, after application of mind, and must not be indefinite or

disproportionate. This conclusion is anchored in Federation of

Pakistan v. General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf (PLD 2016 SC 570), Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 473),

Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC

642), Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 324),

Federal Government v. Ayyan Ali (2017 SCMR 1179) and Sheikh Shan

Ilahi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2023 Lahore 359).

10. The case laws cited above are further amplified by other

precedents which underscore the same principles i.e. the executive

must not act mechanically on departmental recommendations;

placement on an exit or passport control list cannot be automatic

upon registration of an FIR or even upon pendency of proceedings; if a person is on bail, released or not a proclaimed offender, the

authority must give cogent, specific reasons before curtailing his/her

constitutional right to travel. Reference in this regard may be made to

Dada Amir Haider Khan (PLD 1987 SC 504), Wajid Shams-ul-Hassan v.

Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 Lahore 617), Shabana Noor Ahmed

v. DG Immigration and Passport (PLD 2019 Sindh 456), Sayed Zulfikar

Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 Islamabad 316)

and Riaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2014 Islamabad 29).

11. Applying these settled principles to the facts of the present case,

the following salient features emerge from the record:

i. the petitioners' conviction and sentence were suspended by this

Court vide order dated 12.02.2025 and they were released on

bail;

ii. Respondent No.2 placed their names on the PCL on 24.08.2018

pursuant to a recommendation of FIA;

iii. no show-cause notice nor a speaking order explaining the

grounds for blacklisting appears to have been issued to the

petitioners prior to placing their names on the PCL; and

iv. Respondent No.2 has not shown that any fresh appraisal or

periodic review of the petitioners' placement on the PCL was

undertaken after the suspension order was passed by this Court.

12. It is correct that suspension of sentence does not ipso facto

amount to acquittal; however, suspension neutralizes the operative

effect of a conviction for the time being and enlivens the petitioners'

right to be treated as persons entitled to procedural fairness. Even for

persons who stand convicted, any preventive restriction on

fundamental rights must have clear statutory backing and must be

exercised after application of mind and by giving reasons. The Rules

cannot be used in a mechanical fashion to perpetuate deprivation of a

constitutional right without review and without the administrative

authority stating cogent grounds. The absence of any record of

reconsideration, of any fresh security assessment, or of any

contemporaneous reasons why the petitioners should continue to be

prevented from travelling, leads the Court to the conclusion that the

placement on PCL was not the result of an exercise of reasoned

discretion.

13. The respondents rely upon Rule 22(2)(b) and (c) of the Passports

Rules, 2021 as the statutory basis for placement on PCL. Be that as it

may, Rule 22 must be read in light of the Constitution and the

principles elucidated by the Superior Courts. Where the rule is

invoked the authority must show (i) that the case falls squarely within the categories enumerated in the Rule; (ii) that the decision was not

taken mechanically, but after application of mind; (iii) that the

restriction is proportionate to the mischief sought to be prevented; and

(iv) that the person affected was given an opportunity to be heard,

unless the urgency of the circumstance renders such hearing

impracticable and then the authority must nevertheless record

reasons for not giving such hearing. None of these safeguards are

visible on the record before this Court in respect of the petitioners.

14. It is also material that Rule 22(1) contemplates that the Federal

Government is vested with the power to regulate departure and entry

and the Division concerned and Directorate General shall prepare and

maintain the PCL; yet there is nothing on record to indicate that any

approval by the Federal Government, where required, has been

obtained in relation to these entries, or that the competent Division

applied its mind to the matter. For reasons of good governance and to

avoid arbitrary exercise of power, entries on PCL cannot be made or

maintained in a clandestine, mechanical and non-reviewable manner.

15. The respondents have not produced any material to show that

the petitioners pose a continuing security risk, which cannot be

addressed by less restrictive measures, for instance, by conditional

travel permission, surrender of passports to the trial court, or by

court-ordered restrictions tailored to ensure presence for trial. The

record shows that the petitioners are on bail, their appeal is pending

and their conviction is suspended; the principal rationale advanced in

support of the PCL entry (fear of absconsion) has not been supported

by evidence of any attempts to flee or of any threat to national

security. In the absence of such material, continuing the bar on travel

is disproportionate.

16. In the circumstances and for the reasons recorded above and in

light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court referred to earlier, I am of the view that the continued

placement of the petitioners' names on the PCL/Blacklist, without fresh

reasons, without individual notice and without any periodic review

following the suspension of their convictions, is arbitrary and without

lawful authority. Such action imperils the fundamental rights of the

petitioners guaranteed under Articles 4, 9 and 15 of the Constitution.

17. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is allowed. Placing of the

names of the petitioners on the Passport Control List is declared to be

unjustified, illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Respondent No.2 / Director General, Immigration and Passports,

Islamabad is directed to remove the names of the petitioners from the

PCL/Blacklist forthwith and, in any event, within one week from the

date of receipt of this orders Respondent No.2 shall submit a compliance report before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court

upon removal of the names.

18. For future guidance, and to ensure conformity with the

requirements of fairness and reasoned administrative action as laid

down by the Superior Courts, Respondent No.2 and all subordinate

authorities are directed that:

a) no person shall be placed on the PCL without a contemporaneous

record of reasons showing application of mind;

b) wherever practicable a show-cause notice shall be issued before

placing a person on PCL and an opportunity of hearing afforded;

c) where emergency action is taken without prior notice, reasons for

omission of prior notice must be recorded in writing and the

matter must be reviewed within a reasonable time; and

(d) periodic review of entries on PCL must be undertaken to ensure

no person is kept on the list mechanically or indefinitely.

JK/177/Isl. Petition allowed.