with IR Yaseen Vs federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad and others

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P No.13492-P/2026 with IR

Yaseen Vs Federation of Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad and others Date of hearing: 01.10.2026

Petitioner (by): M/S Mohammad Ali and Fayaz Ahmad, Advocates

Respondents (by): M/S Fasiullah, Assistant Attorney General, alongwith Shahbaz Noor, Deputy Director Law, FIA, Main Sabir Hussain, Deputy Director and Haseeb Jamal, SI, FIA, CBC, Peshawar, BKIAP, Peshawar.

JUDGMENT

SYED ARSHAD ALI, J.- The petitioner, Yaseen son of Afsar Khan, has filed the instant constitutional petition, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that his off-loading from the flight to Türkiye on 10.08.2026 was without lawful authority and in violation of his legal and constitutional rights; setting aside of the Off-Loading Proforma dated 10.08.2026, along with any consequential restriction, adverse entry, direction or restraint preventing him from travelling abroad; and a direction to the respondents not to obstruct, hinder or interfere with his lawful travel abroad. He has also sought appropriate action, in accordance with law, against the officials allegedly responsible for his off-loading.

2.Briefly stated, the petitioner asserts that he completed his Intermediate qualification and secured

admission in the four-year Bachelor of Computer Engineering programme at Istanbul Topkapi University, Türkiye, pursuant to the Letter of Offer dated 11.06.2026 and Acceptance Letter dated 19.06.2026, after payment of the requisite educational fee. He thereafter applied for and was granted a Turkish study visa following scrutiny of his academic and financial documents and an interview before the competent Turkish authorities. Having obtained the visa, he purchased an airline ticket and approached the immigration authorities at Bacha Khan International Airport, Peshawar, on 10.08.2026 for departure to Türkiye. According to the petitioner, despite producing his passport, study visa, university admission documents and other relevant papers, and furnishing an undertaking from a BPS-17 officer as required by the FIA authorities, he was stopped and off-loaded by the concerned FIA official on the stated grounds of his allegedly low academic grades and substantial study gap. He maintains that no lawful provision, order or restriction authorizing such restraint was disclosed to him and that, despite his subsequent requests for reconsideration, he was not permitted to travel, compelling him to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

3.The worthy Deputy Director, FIA, along with the worthy Assistant Attorney General, resisted the petition. It has been contended that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) was established under the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (“the FIA Act”) and is entrusted with, inter alia, functions relating to immigration under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 (the Ordinance of 1979”), as well as offences under the Passport Act, 1974 (“the Passport Act”). It has further

been contended that the FIA is the designated agency responsible for regulating the entry and exit of passengers at certain border check-posts under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 (“the Ordinance of 1981”), and the rules made thereunder. According to the respondents, the FIA officers regulate the exit of passengers in the public interest, particularly in view of complaints received from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Türkiye regarding Pakistani citizens who travel abroad and are subsequently found involved in criminal activities, or are deported on account of criminal acts or overstaying their visas. In this regard, the respondents have placed on record a list of Pakistani nationals deported from Türkiye through a special flight on 09/10 June 2026, along with other lists, to demonstrate that a considerable number of Pakistani citizens have been deported from foreign countries. It has been submitted that such incidents not only cause embarrassment to the country but also result in genuine Pakistani travellers being subjected to greater scrutiny and inconvenience abroad. It is, therefore, contended that, in order to ascertain whether a passenger intends to travel abroad for a genuine purpose, the passenger is interviewed by the concerned FIA officer and, where the officer is not satisfied with the passenger's responses or supporting documents, the passenger may be off-loaded. It has further been submitted that a two-tier grievance mechanism is available under the relevant Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), whereby an aggrieved passenger may lodge a grievance against the decision.

4.The submissions advanced by the worthy Deputy Director, FIA, have some force insofar as the State is required to regulate immigration and prevent the exploitation of its citizens, as well as to discharge its obligations concerning the lawful movement of persons across its international borders. However, Pakistan is a country governed by a written Constitution, and the exercise of executive power is subject to the Constitution and the law. The constitutional scheme rests upon the principle of separation of functions among the organs of the State: the Parliament legislates, the Executive implements and administers the law, while the Judiciary interprets and enforces the law. The powers exercised by the Executive must, therefore, have their source in the Constitution or in law validly enacted by the competent legislature, or must otherwise be traceable to lawful authority delegated by the legislature.

5.The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to its citizens, and every public functionary is bound to exercise the authority vested in him within the limits prescribed by law. Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to be treated in accordance with law and to enjoy the protection of law. Similarly, Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees the life and liberty of every citizen of Pakistan. The right to life and liberty is not confined merely to biological existence; rather, it encompasses the various rights and liberties necessary for a citizen to live a dignified and meaningful life in a civilized and socialized society.

6.Of particular relevance to the controversy before us is Article 15 of the Constitution, which provides that

“Every citizen shall have the right to remain in, and, subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by law in the public interest, enter and move freely throughout Pakistan and to reside and settle in any part thereof.” The penumbra of Articles 9 and 15 must be understood to encompass the liberty of a citizen to move and travel, which cannot be confined merely to movement within Pakistan. The right to freedom of movement, as an essential facet of personal liberty, also extends to the right of a citizen to travel abroad. We are mindful that the right to travel abroad is not absolute and may be subjected to reasonable restrictions; however, such restrictions must be imposed by law and must be in the public interest. Any law, rule, regulation or executive instrument having the effect of restricting the liberty or freedom of movement of a citizen must, therefore, satisfy the requirements of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

7.The liberty of a citizen to travel abroad, though constitutionally protected, remains subject to lawful regulation under the statutory framework governing departure from Pakistan. Section 2(1) of the Ordinance of 1981 empowers the Federal Government, by order, to prohibit any person or class of persons from proceeding from Pakistan to a destination outside Pakistan, notwithstanding possession of valid travel documents. Likewise, the preamble to the Passports Act, 1974 indicates that it was enacted to regulate departure from and entry into Pakistan and visits by citizens of Pakistan to foreign countries. Section 3 requires a citizen intending to depart to possess a valid passport and comply with the prescribed port or place, route and

conditions of departure; the passport must also be valid for the country to be visited. Possession of valid travel documents therefore does not exclude restrictions otherwise lawfully imposed. In Government of Pakistan and another v. Dada Amir Haider Khan (PLD 1987 SC 504), the Supreme Court observed that foreign travel could be restricted where it was shown that the proposed visit involved meeting enemies of the country and could endanger State security or prejudice the public interest. These observations identify circumstances capable of justifying a lawful restriction; they do not confer an independent or unfettered power upon an immigration officer to prevent departure merely upon a subjective assessment. The Court rejected the sole ground that the applicant held communist views and emphasized that public discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably and in good faith. Thus, both the authority to impose the restraint and the relevance of the grounds relied upon must be established in accordance with the governing law.1

8.We have examined the FIA Act and considered the provisions of the Ordinance of 1979 relied upon by the respondents. We specifically asked the learned Deputy Director, FIA, assisted by the learned Assistant Attorney General, to identify any provision of law, statutory rule

1.Government of Pakistan and another vs. Dada Amir Haider Khan (PLD 1987 SC 504); Superintendent of Police Special Branch, Karachi and others v. Abubakar and another (1972 SCMR 154); The Montgomery Flour and General Mills Ltd., Montgomery v. The Director Food Purchases West Pakistan and others (PLD 1957 Lah. 914); Messrs East and West Steamship Company v. Pakistan (PLD 1958 SC 41); Ikram Bus Service and others v . Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and others (PLD 1963 SC 564); Mumtaz All Bhutto v. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior and others (PLD 1981 Kar. 98) and Muhammad Noor-ud-Din v. The Government of Pakistan Writ Petition No.550 of 1975 ref.

or prescribed criterion authorizing the off-loading of the petitioner, who possessed valid travel documents, on the recorded grounds of low grades and a substantial study gap. No such legal basis could be pointed out to us. Possession of a valid passport and visa does not exempt a passenger from lawful immigration scrutiny; however, the power to scrutinize 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. An SOP may regulate the exercise of an existing statutory power, but cannot supply an independent legal basis for the impugned restraint.

9.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 the FIA, in the absence of any statutory provision conferring such authority upon it. An FIA immigration official, during a brief interview at the airport, cannot assume the role of an educational assessor, educationist or academician and impose an academic standard which the governing law does not prescribe. The academic and financial documents were apparently considered by the competent

authorities of the destination country before issuing the study visa.

10.The power to regulate international travel is undoubtedly a matter of public importance; however, its exercise must remain anchored in law. Administrative convenience, generalized 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. An individual restraint requires an individual factual foundation connected to the legal power invoked. Neither the misconduct of other travellers nor the possibility of national embarrassment can supply a missing legal basis for such restraint.

11.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 characterization of such action as preventive does not diminish its gravity or relieve the authorities of their obligation to act lawfully, fairly and proportionately. A restraint carrying such immediate and

potentially lasting consequences must rest upon lawful authority, relevant material and specific, intelligible reasons, with due observance of the safeguards prescribed by law.

12.The off-loading of a passenger possessing valid travel documents, on a ground extraneous to the law or otherwise unsupported by lawful authority, may expose the concerned 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 unauthorized restraint upon his right to travel. 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 unauthorized act of his off-loading by the respondents.

13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold and declare 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, including a valid passport and visa, unless such interference is authorized by law and is founded upon relevant material establishing circumstances within the scope of that authority. Any restraint must satisfy the conditions prescribed by the governing law and serve the purpose for which the power has 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.

14.For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed in the above terms. A copy of this judgment shall be transmitted to the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, as well as to the Director General, Federal Investigation Agency, for information, compliance and necessary guidance to the concerned immigration authorities.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Date of hearing and announcement of judgment ............ 01.10.2026

Date of preparation and signing of Judgment ............... 05.10.2026

D.B Hon’ble Mr. Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Babar Sattar Mahmood Shah, PS