Mohammad Jamil etc Vs Federation of Pakistan etc

Judgment Sheet

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

PESHAWAR.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

JUDGMENT

Writ Petition No.9815-P/2025.

Date of hearing 23.02.2026.

Muhammad Jamil etc Vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Islamabad, etc.

Petitioner (s) by: M/s Saeed Muhammad, Hafiz Fazal Rahim, Ammad Ahmed Siddiqui, Sarfaraz Khan Mohmand, Alishba Khan, Imran Khan, Muhammad Sharif Marwat, Pirzada Muhammad Ilyas Khan Qureshi and Saif Ullah Siddiqui Advocates.

Respondent(s) by: M/s Rahat Ali Nahaqi, Assistant Attorney General alongwith Muhammad Mubarak, Shahid Imran Gigyani, Assistant Director (legal) NADRA, Moazzam Habib, Legal Advisor, Shafa Ullah, Assistant Director, Asghar Jamal, Assistant Director, Immigration & Passport, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad

Research Assistance: Mazhar Ali Khan, Research & Reference Officer.

WIQAR AHMAD, J:-. Through this single judgment, we propose to decide Writ Petition No.9815-P/2025 (Muhammad Jamil etc Vs Federation of Pakistan &

others through Federal Secretary, Islamabad, etc), Writ Petition No.9837-P/2025 (Aseel Khan etc Vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior, Islamabad, etc), Writ Petition No.9898-P/2025 (Saeed Khan etc Vs Federation of Pakistan & others through Federal Secretary, Islamabad, etc), Writ Petition No.10442-P/2025 (Abdul Waheed Safi alias Waheed Ullah etc Vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Islamabad, etc), Writ Petition No.10443- P/2025 (Bas Bibi etc Vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Islamabad, etc), Writ Petition No.10468-P/2025 (Abdul Qadar etc Vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Islamabad, etc), Writ Petition No.10526-P/2025 (Abdul Hakeem etc Vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Islamabad, etc), Writ Petition No.10528-P/2025 (Saleem Khan etc Vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Islamabad, etc), Writ Petition No.10556-P/2025 (Muhammad Ibrahim etc Vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Islamabad, etc), Writ Petition No.118-P/2026 (Mst.

Nyaz Maroo Bibi etc Vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Islamabad, etc), Writ Petition WP No.9815-P/2025

No.125-P/2025 (Qadam Gul Vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Islamabad, etc) and Writ Petition No.131-P/2026 (Abdul Ahmad etc Vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Islamabad, etc). All the cases are identical in nature and common questions of law and fact are involved therein.

The aforesaid writ petitions have been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, where petitioners (Afghan nationals) have prayed for issuance of directions to respondents, for issuing naturalization to them on the ground of their long stay in Pakistan.

2.The petitioners, Afghan nationals who migrated to Pakistan in 1988 (with some families arriving prior to 1980), have resided, conducted business, and integrated socially and economically within the country for decades. While they possess Afghan Citizen Cards (ACC) and Proof of Registration (POR) cards to regularize their stay, they contend that their prolonged and continuous residence qualifies them for citizenship via Naturalization Certificates under the Naturalization Act 1926. These writ petitions are filed following the respondents' failure to consider their WP No.9815-P/2025

eligibility for naturalization.

3.Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, having resided in Pakistan for an extensive period, qualify for the grant of citizenship under Section 3 of the Naturalization Act, 1926. It was contended that the petitioners satisfy the statutory residency requirement of an aggregate stay of at least four years within the preceding seven years, including continuous residence for the twelve months immediately prior to their application. The petitioners further maintain that they meet all other essential criteria under Section 3. Despite their eligibility, the official respondents have refused to entertain their applications filed under Section 4 of the Naturalization Act, necessitating the present petitions.

4.In response to the Court’s previous direction, officials from the Directorate General of Immigration and Passports, including Assistant Directors Asghar Jamal Qureshi and Shafa Ullah, and Legal Advisor Moazzam Habib, appeared alongside the Deputy Attorney General. The Legal Advisor clarified the distinct procedures for acquiring citizenship:

Commonwealth citizens apply directly under the WP No.9815-P/2025

Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and upon satisfaction of the Federal Government, are issued a certificate (Form R-1) and registered as citizens without undergoing naturalization. In contrast, non-Commonwealth nationals, such as those from Afghanistan, must first obtain a certificate under the Naturalization Act, 1926.

Following the grant of naturalization and the taking of an oath of allegiance, such individuals may apply for citizenship registration under Section 9 of the 1951 Act.

Addressing the petitioners’ grievances regarding the non-entertainment of applications, the departmental representatives refuted the allegations. They stated that the Assistant Director General’s branch at the Directorate’s Islamabad office (Sector G-8/1) is responsible for receiving and acknowledging such applications. Furthermore, they clarified that applications under Section 4 of the Naturalization Act may be submitted via registered post, and all such requests are duly processed and disposed of in accordance with the law.

5.When questioned why the Directorate

General of Immigration & Passports has not yet aligned with the Federal Government’s E-governance policy WP No.9815-P/2025

specifically regarding the digital processing of applications through a dedicated portal, the representative replied that the transition is underway.

He stated that the department will shortly deploy software to facilitate the online submission and processing of such applications.

6.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.A perusal of the record reveals that Section 3 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, provides for the deemed citizenship of individuals who, or whose parents or grandparents, were born in the territories included in Pakistan on August 14, 1947, and were residing there at that time. Similarly, citizenship is extended to those who, or whose predecessors, resided in India on March 1, 1937, and subsequently obtained a domicile in any area now forming part of Pakistan. The provision also covers individuals naturalized as British subjects in Pakistan who have not acquired foreign citizenship, as well as those who migrated from the Indian subcontinent with the intention of permanently residing in Pakistan.

8.Section 4 of Citizenship Act 1951 provides WP No.9815-P/2025

for acquiring citizenship by birth while Section 5 thereof providing citizenship by descent from the parents and similarly Section 6 was providing for acquiring citizenship by migration. Section 9 of the Citizenship Act is relevant for our present discourse, which provides for grant of citizenship by naturalization. Same section is also reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

9.Citizenship by naturalization. The Federal Government may, upon an application made to it in that behalf by any person who has been granted a certificate of naturalization under the Naturalization Act, 1926, register that person as a citizen of Pakistan by naturalization:

Provided that the Federal Government may register any person as a citizen of Pakistan without his having obtained a certificate of naturalization as aforesaid.

It is important to note that a separate provision has been incorporated into the Act for the acquisition of Pakistani citizenship by citizens of Commonwealth countries. This is governed by Section 20 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, which is reproduced below:

20.Acquisition of Pakistan citizenship by citizens of Commonwealth countries. The Federal Government may upon such terms and 3conditions as it may by WP No.9815-P/2025

general or special order 4specify register a Commonwealth citizen or a British protected person] as a citizen of Pakistan.

Sections 9 and 20 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, bifurcate the mechanism for acquiring citizenship, distinguishing between citizens of Commonwealth countries or British protected persons and individuals belonging to other foreign states.

9.Regarding the grant of citizenship to Commonwealth citizens or British protected persons, Section 20 of the Citizenship Act, 1951, provides that the Federal Government may register such individuals as citizens of Pakistan upon such terms and conditions as it may specify by general or special order. Rule 20 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, prescribes the procedure for the registration of such persons in the following manner:

20.Acquisition of Pakistan citizenship by Commonwealth citizens. (1)Any Commonwealth citizen or British protected person] may apply in Form 'R' in duplicate for the citizenship of Pakistan.

(2)The application shall be submitted to the Pakistan Mission or Consulate in the country or where there is no Pakistan Mission or Consulate in that country to a prescribed Mission or Consulate or to a Pakistan Mission or Consulate in the WP No.9815-P/2025

country nearest to that country But if the applicant is at the time of the application resident in Pakistan, he shall apply to the Federal Government.

(3)The application shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the truth of the statements made therein.

(4)The Mission or Consulate or the Government of Pakistan may ask for such information in regard to—

(a)the national status of the applicant in his country;

(b)his knowledge of languages;

(c)his special qualifications, if any;

(d)his income and its source; and

(e)any disabilities to which citizens of Pakistan are subject in the country of the applicant.

(5)The Federal Government shall pass such orders on the application as it deems fit.

10.It is evident that Commonwealth citizens or British protected persons may apply directly to the Federal Government using Form R, and citizenship may be granted to them without recourse to the mechanism prescribed in the Naturalization Act, 1926. However, the procedure for individuals from other foreign states is distinct. To obtain citizenship by naturalization under Section 9 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, such persons must generally secure a certificate of naturalization under the Naturalization Act, 1926.

Sections 3 and 4 of the Naturalization Act, 1926, establish the eligibility criteria and the requisite form of WP No.9815-P/2025

application, while Section 5 governs the grant of the naturalization certificate. Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Naturalization Act, 1926, are reproduced below for ease of reference:

3. GRANT OF CERTIFICATE OF

NATURALIZATION:

(1)The Federal Government may grant a certificate of naturalization to any person who makes an application in this behalf and satisfies the Federal Government-

(a)that he is not a minor;

(b)that he is neither a citizen of Pakistan nor a subject of any state of which a citizen of Pakistan is prevented by or under any law from becoming a subject by naturalization;

(c)That he has resided in Pakistan throughout the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of the application, and has, during the seven years immediately preceding the said period of twelve months, resided in Pakistan for a period amounting in the aggregate to not less than four years;

(d)that he is of good character;

(e)that he has an adequate knowledge of a language which has been declared by the Federal Government by notification in the official Gazette, to be one of the principal vernaculars of Pakistan; and (f) that he intends, if the application is granted, to reside in Pakistan or to enter or continue in the service of the State in Pakistan;

Provided that nothing in clause (c) or clause (f) shall apply in the case of woman who was a citizen of Pakistan previously to her marriage to a person not a citizen of Pakistan and whose husband WP No.9815-P/2025

has died or whose marriage has been dissolved.

(2)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the grant of a certificate of naturalization to any person to whom a certificate of naturalization has been issued under the Indian Naturalization Act, 18521.

4.Contents and form of application:

(1)Every application for a certificate of naturalization shall be in writing and shall state, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the applicant:

(a)his age;

(b)his place of birth;

(c)his place of residence;

(d)his profession, trade, or occupation;

(e)full particulars regarding his qualifications in respect of the matter referred to in clause (a) to (f) of subsection (1) of section 3;

(f)whether he has at any time previously applied for the grant of a certificate of naturalization under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, or the Indian Naturalization Act, 1852' or this Act.

(g)whether any such application has been rejected;

(h)whether any such certificate has been granted to him; and

(i)whether any such certificate granted to him has been revoked 1or whether he has been deprived of his citizenship under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951.

2.Every such application shall be signed by the applicant and shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn by him verifying that the statements contained therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

3.The Federal Government shall satisfy itself as to the truth of the statements contained in the application and for this purpose may cause to be made such WP No.9815-P/2025

further inquiry, if any and may require such further evidence, if any, either by affidavit or otherwise as it thinks necessary.

5.Grant of certificate:

(1)If the Federal Government is satisfied that the applicant is qualified under section 3 for the grant of a certificate of naturalization and is otherwise a fit person for the grant of such certificate, it may grant a certificate reciting the qualifications of the applicant for such grant and conferring upon him all the rights, privileges and capacities of naturalization under this Act, except such rights, privileges or capacities, if any, as may specifically be withheld by the certificate.

(2)Any such certificate may, if the applicant so requests, include the name of any minor child of the applicant, not being by birth2 a citizen of 3[Pakistan] who was born before the date of the certificate and is for the time being resident in Pakistan] and under the control of the applicant; and shall grant to any child so included all the rights, privileges and capacities of naturalization under this Act except such rights, privileges or capacities, if any, as may specifically be withheld by the certificate.

(3)The grant of a certificate of naturalization shall be in the absolute discretion of the Federal Government, and no appeal shall lie from any refusal to grant any such certificate or to include in any such grant any particular right, privilege or capacity.

5.The procedure for applying for naturalization is prescribed in the Pakistan Naturalization Rules, 1961. Specifically, Rule 3 of WP No.9815-P/2025

these Rules, along with the appended Form, outlines the required application format. Upon issuance of a naturalization certificate, the individual is required to take an oath of allegiance to the State of Pakistan, as mandated by Section 6 of the Naturalization Act.

Concurrently, the spouse of such a person may submit a declaration expressing intent to acquire Pakistani citizenship. Following the administration of the oath and the filing of the declaration, both the naturalized person and their spouse are deemed citizens of Pakistan under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Naturalization Act. Any child born of their wedlock is also deemed a citizen of Pakistan under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Naturalization Act, enjoying the same rights and privileges as the primary holder of the naturalization certificate. However, to acquire full citizenship, such individuals must submit a fresh application to the Federal Government under Section 9 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, using the naturalization certificate as a basis. The Federal Government then has the discretion to register such a person as a citizen of Pakistan. Furthermore, Rule 13 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, delineates the specific WP No.9815-P/2025

mechanism for registering such individuals, as follows:

13.Citizenship by naturalization.-(1) Any person claiming citizenship under section 9 of the Act shall apply in Form “E” in triplicate to the Federal Government.

(2)Each form shall be accompanied by –

(a)an affidavit of the statements made therein ;

(b)a certificate of Naturalization under the Naturalization Act, 1926 (VII of

(c)a certificate that the applicant had taken the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of Pakistan within the period prescribed by section 6 of the Naturalization Act, 1926.

(3)The Federal Government, after making such inquiries as it considers necessary, may grant a certificate of registration in Form “R-1” or reject the application.

(4)Where an exemption from producing certificate of naturalization is sought, the application shall in a statement recorded on oath, specify the reasons for which he seeks the exemption.

(5)The Federal Government shall pass such orders on the application as it deems fit.

6.An analysis of the two aforementioned statutes and the rules framed thereunder manifests that individuals who are nationals of countries other than Commonwealth states or British protected persons may WP No.9815-P/2025

only be granted citizenship under Section 9 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, subsequent to obtaining a naturalization certificate under the Naturalization Act and fulfilling the requisite formalities, including the administration of an oath. Any such person residing in Pakistan and fulfilling the conditions stipulated in Section 3 of the Naturalization Act may apply to the Federal Government for the grant of a naturalization certificate in the manner provided under Section 4 thereof. The designated office for the receipt of such applications is that of the Assistant Director, General Branch, within the Directorate General of Immigration & Passports. Such applications may be submitted by post with an "acknowledgement due" card; in all instances, the receiving officer is duty-bound to provide an acknowledgement upon submission. Furthermore, the Directorate General of Immigration & Passports is currently developing a software interface for online applications, which is expected to be deployed at the earliest opportunity.

7.Coming back to the cases of these

petitioners, they have directly approached this Court without submitting any proof that they had applied to WP No.9815-P/2025

the concerned office for the issuance of a naturalization certificate. No such acknowledgement from the Directorate General, Immigration & Passports, has been annexed with any of these writ petitions. In such circumstances, a writ petition cannot be entertained directly by this Court unless the person has first exhausted the departmental remedies. Since an alternate remedy is available before the concerned department, a person seeking any right under Section 3 of the Naturalization Act must first file a formal application under Section 4 of said Act before the competent officer. The principle that constitutional jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked in the presence of an efficacious statutory remedy is not a rule of limitation but of judicial restraint, designed to preserve the functional integrity of statutory forums and respect legislative design. In Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib and others (2011 SCMR 1813), the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following test for determination of the adequacy of remedy:

“(i) If the relief available through the alternative remedy in its nature or extent is not what is necessary to give the requisite relief, the alternative remedy is not an 'other adequate remedy' within the WP No.9815-P/2025

meaning of Article 199.

(ii)If the relief available through the alternative remedy, in its nature and extent, is what is necessary to give the requisite relief, the 'adequacy' of the alternative remedy must further be judged, with reference to a comparison of the speed, expense or convenience of obtaining that relief through the alternative remedy, with the speed, expense or convenience of obtaining it under Article 199. But in making this comparison those factors must not be taken into account which would themselves alter if the remedy under Article 199 were used as a substitute for the other remedy.

(iii)In practice the following steps may be taken:

(a)Formulate the grievance in the given case, as a generalized category;

(b)Formulate the relief that is necessary to redress that category of grievance;

(c)See if the law has prescribed any remedy that can redress that category of grievance in that way and to the required extent;

(d)If such a remedy is prescribed the law contemplates that resort must be had to that remedy;

(e)If it appears that the machinery established for the purposes of that remedy is not functioning properly, the correct step to take will be a step that is calculated to ensure, as far as lies in the power of the Court, that that machinery begins to function as it should. It would not be correct to take over the function of that machinery. If the function of another organ is taken over, that other organ will atrophy, and the organ that takes over, WP No.9815-P/2025

will break down under the strain;

(f)If there is no other remedy that can redress that category of grievance in that way and to the required extent, or if there is such a remedy but conditions are attached to it which for a particular category of cases would neutralize or defeat it so as to deprive it of its substance, the Court should give the requisite relief under Article 199;

(g)If there is such other remedy, but there is something so special in the circumstances of a given case that the other remedy which generally adequate, to the relief required for that category of grievance, is not adequate to the relief that is essential in the very special category to which that case belongs, the Court should give the required relief under Article 199.

If the procedure for obtaining the relief by some other proceedings is too cumbersome or the relief cannot be obtained without delay and expense, or the delay would make the grant of the relief meaningless this court would not hesitate to issue a writ if the party applying for it is found entitled to it, simply because the party could have chosen another course to obtain the relief which is due.”

8.Long before the test laid down in Dr. Sher Afgan (supra), the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Tariq Transport Company v. Sargodha Bhera Bus Service (PLD 1958 SC 437) outlined the limits of writ jurisdiction as follow:

“It is wrong on principle for the High Court to entertain petitions for writs, WP No.9815-P/2025

except in very exceptional circumstances, when the law provides a remedy by appeal to another tribunal fully competent to award the requisite relief. Any indulgence to the contrary by the High Court is calculated to create a distrust in statutory tribunals of competent jurisdiction and to cast an undeserved reflection on their honesty and competency and thus to defeat the legislative intent.”

9.In our neighboring jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of India in Thansingh Nathmal v. A. Mazid [1964] 6 SCR 654: AIR 1964 SC 1419]; Siliguri Municipality v.

Amalendu Das (1984) 2 SCC 436: (AIR 1984 SC653), Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433: (AIR 1983 SC 603), Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd (1984) 2 SCC 646: (AIR 1984 SC 1264) and reaffirmed in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v.

Dunlop India Ltd. (AIR 1985 SC 330; (1985) 1 SCC 260), categorically held that where a statute provides a complete machinery for redress, that remedy must be pursued. It is only in few cases such as Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998) 8 SCC 1 wherein, the Indian Supreme Court recognizes limited exceptions such as a total absence of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or patent unconstitutionality for assuming jurisdiction by a High Court directly.

10.Likewise, the High Court of England & Wales WP No.9815-P/2025

in the case of Glencore Energy UK Ltd. v.

Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs, [2017] EWHC 1476 held:

“The basic principle is that judicial review is a remedy of last resort such that where an alternative remedy exists that should be exhausted before any application for permission to apply for judicial review is made. Case law indicates that where a statutory alternative exists, granting permission to claim judicial review should be exceptional. The rule is not however invariable and where an alternative remedy is nonetheless ineffective or inappropriate to address the complaints being properly advanced then judicial review may still lie.”

11.In the case of Union of India v. T.R. Varma (AIR 1957 SC 882), the Supreme Court of India observed:

“It is well-settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ; but .. 'the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs'. And where such remedy exists, it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226, unless there are good grounds therefor.”

WP No.9815-P/2025

12.While reverting to the situation in hand, we can safely hold that a writ petition filed by a foreign citizen for the issuance of a naturalization certificate shall only be maintainable where the petitioner demonstrates substantial compliance with the available statutory machinery by filing a formal application under Section 4, supported by an official acknowledgement or proof of postage. This Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, must respect the legislative intent and the functional integrity of statutory forums;

therefore, it cannot exercise the executive functions by issuing a naturalization certificate directly. Such a grant remains the exclusive prerogative of the Federal Government, which job has been assigned to Director General, Immigration & Passports. The alternate remedy is not only efficacious but exclusive to the authority of the concerned officer of Federal Government. Consequently, this Court shall only intervene where the statutory remedy is proven to be inefficacious or illusory due to administrative inaction, typically evidenced by a failure to process the application within sufficient time i.e a period of six months. In the absence of such proof of exhaustion of WP No.9815-P/2025

the departmental remedies, all the writ petitions were found premature, and therefore not maintainable. The petitioners shall remain at liberty to approach the competent authority in the manner prescribed by the Naturalization Act, 1926.

13.All these writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

Announced.

--sd--

JUDGE

--sd--

JUDGE

“A.Qayum PS” (DB) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wiqar Ahmad and Justice Ms. Farah Jamshed.

WP No.9815-P/2025