Federal Constitutional Court Restores Passport & Immigration Rules, Government Regains Power to Block Citizens’ Passports
ISLAMABAD — In a significant legal development, the Federal Constitutional Court has restored the provisions of the Passport and Immigration Rules that had previously been struck down by the Lahore High Court, effectively reinstating the government’s authority to block citizens’ passports and place their names on the Passport Control List (PCL).A two-member bench, headed by…
ISLAMABAD — In a significant legal development, the Federal Constitutional Court has restored the provisions of the Passport and Immigration Rules that had previously been struck down by the Lahore High Court, effectively reinstating the government’s authority to block citizens’ passports and place their names on the Passport Control List (PCL).
A two-member bench, headed by Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, took up the federal government’s appeal and suspended the Lahore High Court’s earlier ruling, declaring the appeal admissible. Notices have been issued to all parties for further proceedings.
With the restoration of these provisions, the government once again holds the administrative power to deactivate a citizen’s passport and restrict their ability to travel internationally by placing their name on the Passport Control List — a tool frequently used in cases involving individuals accused of financial crimes, terrorism, or matters of national security.
The Lahore High Court had originally declared these provisions unconstitutional, ruling that they infringed upon citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms of movement. The federal government subsequently challenged that ruling before the Federal Constitutional Court, arguing that these powers are essential for national security and law enforcement.
Civil liberties groups and legal experts have expressed concern over the reinstatement of these powers, calling for clear, transparent, and judicially supervised criteria to govern their use and prevent potential misuse against political opponents or dissenting voices.
The case is expected to continue with responses from all parties before a final verdict is delivered.
