Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 259. In this matter between Const. P. 4429/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Muhammad Ibrahim (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 4429/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 257 PARTIES: Muhammad Ibrahim (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 09-FEB-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ 1

ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Constitutional Petition No. D-4429 of 2025 (Muhammad Ibrahim v Federation of Pakistan & others)

Date Order with signature of Judge

Before:- Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Kari Memon Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi

Date of hearing and order:- 09.2.2026

Ms. Maidha Mateen advocate for the petitioner Ms. Wajiha Mehdi, Assistant Attorney General Mr. Abdus Samad Khan, Law Officer, NADRA ---------------------

O R D E R Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J- Petitioner Muhammad Ibrahim has filed this Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the following prayer: -

a. Declare that pursuant to section 5 of the Act, 195, the Petitioner is entitled to his CNIC issuance.

b. Direct the Respondents to immediately implement the DLC order dated 10.10.2023 and process the Petitioner's CNIC application without delay.

c. Declare that the action of delaying the issuance of the Petitioner's CNIC by the Respondents is i llegal, void, malafide, in excess of their authority, and has no legal effect in the eyes of law.

d. Declare that the Respondent's policy 6.0.0, page 11, [remarks (IV)] states that if one parent holds a 13 -digit CNIC, and if that CNIC is clear, then the chil d will be entitled to a CNIC, the Petitioner is entitled to have his CNIC issued without any further delay.

e. Issue a 'writ of certiorari' under Article 199 (1) (a) (ii) of the Constitution and declare that Respondents' actions, including but not limited to their refusal to issue to the Petitioner a CNIC , are illegal, malafide and in excess of their authority;

f. Issue a 'writ of mandamus under article 199 (1) (c) of the Constitution and direct the Respondents to immediately process Petitioner's application an d accordingly issue his CNIC under section 10 of the Ordinance and ensure that his details are updated on the National Database being maintained by Respondent No. 2;

g. Issue a 'writ of prohibition' under article 199 (1) (c) of the Constitution and restrain the Respondents or any person or authority acting under them from harassing the Petitioner and his family or acting in disregard of Petitioner's rights.

2. The petitioner, Muhammad Ibrahim, filed this Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Const itution seeking issuance of his CNIC and challenging the respondents’ delay as illegal, mala fide, and without lawful

2

authority. He also sought enforcement of the DLC order dated 10.10.2023 and issuance of appropriate constitutional writs. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for CNIC under the fresh/late registration category vide TID No. 505492278402, providing biometric verification of his father along with supporting documents. His case was marked under verification and referred to the Zo nal Verification Board through NVS ID Z030K0006627 dated 11.09.2022. During proceedings, the petitioner produced available documents; however, as per the Verification Policy and MOI Notification dated 05.01.2018, he failed to provide documentary evidence i ssued prior to 1971 as required under Section 16(A) and Rule 13(A) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. Consequently, the Zonal Board, noting that the petitioner is Bengali -speaking and lacks the requisite pre -1971 documents, recommended verification thr ough IB, which reported that the petitioner does not possess documents as per policy. Thereafter, the matter was referred to DLC West for further verification of national status. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was informed that the petitioner is required to appear before DLC West for verification, as his case involves the determination of national status. She submitted that the petitioner has already approached DLC West, but no progress has been made. However, learned counsel for NADRA assured that t he petitioner’s case would be processed strictly in accordance with the law without any bottlenecks. The request is found reasonable and accordingly acceded to. 5. With the consent of both parties, the petition, along with pending application(s), is dispos ed of with the direction that the petitioner shall appear before DLC West, and the respondents shall process his case without unnecessary delay. However, he shall submit the necessary documents for the aforementioned purpose. The entire exercise shall be completed within two weeks.

JUDGE

JUDGE Shafi

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant