AGL38.63▲ 0.81 (0.02%)AIRLINK129.71▼ -3.52 (-0.03%)BOP5.64▲ 0 (0.00%)CNERGY3.86▲ 0.09 (0.02%)DCL8.7▼ -0.16 (-0.02%)DFML41.9▲ 0.96 (0.02%)DGKC88.35▼ -1.34 (-0.01%)FCCL34.93▼ -0.13 (0.00%)FFBL67.02▲ 0.48 (0.01%)FFL10.57▲ 0.44 (0.04%)HUBC108.57▲ 2.01 (0.02%)HUMNL14.66▲ 1.33 (0.10%)KEL4.76▼ -0.09 (-0.02%)KOSM6.95▲ 0.15 (0.02%)MLCF41.68▲ 0.15 (0.00%)NBP59.64▲ 0.99 (0.02%)OGDC183.31▲ 2.67 (0.01%)PAEL26.23▲ 0.61 (0.02%)PIBTL5.95▲ 0.15 (0.03%)PPL147.09▼ -0.68 (0.00%)PRL23.57▲ 0.41 (0.02%)PTC16.5▲ 1.3 (0.09%)SEARL68.42▼ -0.27 (0.00%)TELE7.19▼ -0.04 (-0.01%)TOMCL35.86▼ -0.08 (0.00%)TPLP7.82▲ 0.46 (0.06%)TREET14.17▲ 0.02 (0.00%)TRG50.51▼ -0.24 (0.00%)UNITY26.76▲ 0.31 (0.01%)WTL1.21▲ 0 (0.00%)

Govt can cancel, confiscate passport not blacklist: LHC

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]
Amraiz Khan
Lahore

The Lahore High Court on Thursday said that there was no clause in the Passport Act to blacklist a passport of any individual. The court declared the law of blacklisting the passport as null and void.

Justice Tariq Salim Sheikh gave the decision on the petition filed by Sheikh Shan Ilahi and Syed Anwar Shah against the non-renewal of their passports.

“The federal government, under article 8 of the Act, can either confiscate a citizen’s passport or cancel it, but cannot blacklist it,” the judge said, adding there was no provision in the Passport Rules, 1974 under which the document could be blacklisted. “Even the government’s act of cancellation of somebody’s passport is subject to court’s review,” he explained. References to the superior courts’ decisions in Pakistan Muslim League-N leaders’, namely Nawaz Sharif and Shehbaz Sharif, cases were also made part of the verdict by the LHC. The court further said in its decision that the deputy attorney general had expressed his serious concern in case passport’s blacklisting law was annulled. The decision stressed the role of the parliament to remove flaws from a law, if any. “Protection of basic human rights is must for the establishment of a free society. The protection of these constitutional rights is a priority when it comes to a situation wherein a state is mulling interfering in a citizen’s life on mere suspicion,” read the verdict.

Giving the reference of Supreme Court’s decision in PML-N’s case in 2007, the LHC said in it the apex court had clearly laid down.

Related Posts