FCC suspends LHC decision setting aside govt's authority to render passports inactive

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Monday suspended the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) December 23, 2025, decision declaring key provisions of the Passport Rules 2021, which allowed the government to render a citizen’s passport inactive and impose long-term travel bans on deportees and human trafficking suspects, as ultra vires.

With the suspension of the LHC order, the federal government’s authority to inactivate passports and slap long-term travel bans stands restored for the time being, until the top court concludes the dispute in its final judgment.

Headed by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, a three-judge FCC bench that had taken up an appeal moved by the Directorate General of Immigration and Passports (DGIP), issued notices to the respondents, including a citizen named Farhan Ali, the additional director general of immigration at the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), the FIA Multan Circle deputy director and the director of the FIA regional office in Multan.

The dispute arose when Ali, who hails from Vehari, was deported from Iran. Following his deportation, the FIA recommended that his name be placed in the Passport Control List (PCL). Consequently, the DGIP inactivated his passport and imposed a travel restriction of five years.

He then challenged the inactivation of his passport before the LHC Multan Bench, which, on Dec 23, 2025, ruled in his favour with an observation that the power to inactivate a passport under Rule 23 of the Passport Rules 2021 was beyond the scope of Section 8 of the Passport Act, 1974 and, therefore, ultra vires.

Moreover, the LHC ruled that the imposition of a travel ban or restriction for five years or more under Rule 22(2)(c) was substantially ultra vires of the parent Act, adding that the power to cancel, impound, or confiscate a passport did not inherently include the power to inactivate it.

Meanwhile, the DGIP, in its appeal before the FCC, argued that the LHC declared Rule 22(2)(c) as ultra vires when Ali had never challenged this specific rule in his original writ petition.

The FIA also emphasised that the respondent was deported from Iran and the relevant record showed that he exited the country illegally and violated the immigration laws of a foreign country, in addition to the international law of immigration.

“Pakistan, as a responsible state, has endorsed the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime, 2000 and signed the protocol for the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, which is the world’s primary legal instrument to combat human trafficking,” the DGIP’s petition highlighted.

Hence, it is the responsibility of the state to discourage persons who are illegally going abroad and distorting the image of the country. Besides, it was the policy of the government that the person who had caused disrepute to the country at large cannot be allowed to take leverage on the pretext of employment abroad, it contended.

During Monday’s hearing, Justice Rizvi wondered whether the matter was related to those who went abroad illegally, or travel by using “dunki” — often used as a blanket term for all informal migrations.

Additional Attorney General (AAG) Chaudhry Aamir Rehman, who represented the government, contended that Ali’s name was included in the PCL because he was deported from Iran.

Meanwhile, the petition contended that under Section 11 of the Passport Act, 1974, the federal government had the power to delegate functions to the director general of immigration, who framed the Passport Rules 2021. Therefore, Rule 23 was legally valid, it said.

Citing Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the petition argued that the power to cancel, impound, or confiscate inherently included the power to “inactivate” – just as the power to create includes the power to modify or revoke.

The petition recalled how the Supreme Court in a human rights case in 2017-18 had directed the formation of standard operating procedures to blacklist human traffickers and deportees, including the cancellation of passports and placement on a blacklist for a specific period.

The petition contended that restricting travel for deportees was consistent with international commitments, adding that the right to travel abroad was not absolute under Article 15 of the Constitution.

The petition pleaded before the FCC to set aside the LHC’s order by rejecting Ali’s original writ petition. The petition urged the court to declare that the placement of an individual’s name on the PCL for five years under Rule 22(2)(c) was not arbitrary or ultra vires.