Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2026 SHC 1166. In this matter between Const. P. 2227/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Noman Raisi (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. 2227/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 1166 PARTIES: Noman Raisi (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 18-MAY-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Hasan (Akber) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ 1

ORDER SHEET THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH KARACHI C.P. No. D – 2227 of 2026 [Noman Raisi v. FOP & others]

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(S)

Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon Mr. Justice Muhammad Hasan (Akber)

1. For order on Office Objection. 2. For hearing of Main Case.

18-05-2026

Mr. Mansoor Hassan Memon, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Ghulam Akbar Khan, Assistant Attorney General alongwith Ms. Mehvish Iftikhar, Sub-Inspector, FIA, JIAP, Karachi. ********** O R D E R Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J Petitioner, Noman Raisi , has filed this Constitutional Petition under Arti cle 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the following relief(s):

“a. To declare the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in any list , i.e., ECL / PNIL / PCL or any other hidden list, as illegal.

b. That also declares that the acts of the respondents are illegal, unlawful ab initio, and have no legal effect in the eyes of the law.

c. To pass an appropriate order in favor and direct the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from the list, i.e., of the petitioner from the PCL / PNIL / or any other hidden list maintained by the respondents, and further allow him to visit Pakistan and travel to any other country.

d. To direct the respondents to produce any hidden list in which if the name of the petitioner is mentioned. If not found , then the respondents may be restrained from repeating the same act.

e. Any other reliefs) which this Honourable court deems feet and proper and the circumstances of the case is also awarded to the petitioner.

f. To direct the respondents for the cost of the petition.”

2. The petitioner has filed the instant Constitutional Petition seeking removal of his name from the Exit Control List (ECL), PNIL, PCL, or any other hidden travel restriction list. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a citizen of Pakistan and has been employed as a Sales Consultant with LUXDOR Fragrance Trading in Qatar since 01.12.2021. It was contended that when the petitioner visited Pakistan on an annual vacation and attempted to return to Qatar on 24.12.2024 through Jinnah International Airport, Karachi, he was offloaded by FIA Immigration authorities on the ground that his name was placed in the stop list, though no reason or prior notice was ever provided to him. Learned counsel

2

further submitted that the petitioner initially approached the c oncerned authorities through representations, but no response was received, compelling him to file Constitutional Petition No.1184/2025 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2025 after comments were filed by respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner’s name was not available in the stop list. It was argued that despite such a statement, the petitioner subsequently came to know that his name had again been placed in some hidden travel restriction list without lawful authority. Thereafter, legal notices were issued to respondents seeking details of any such list, but no reply was furnished. It was further contended that the unlawful acts of the respondents have caused severe mental agony, financial hardship, and uncertainty to the petitioner and his family. Learned counsel argued that inclusion of the name of an innocent citizen in the ECL, PNIL, PCL, or any undisclosed list without due process is contrary to law and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitutio n of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner has therefore prayed that the respondents be directed to remove his name from any such list, disclose the basis of any restriction, and restrain the authorities from repeating such action in future. 4. Learned DAG submitted that the relevant record was examined and, according to the Stop List generated through the Integrated Border Management System (IBMS) dated 14.05.2026, the name of the petitioner exists on the active Stop List. Learned DAG poin ted out that the record reflects CNIC No. 42301 - 8001762-9, Passport No. BB0977623, in the name of Noman Murad , son of Murad Muhammad, and further mentions that the individual had been jailed abroad and deported as a prisoner vide File Serial IS827, Token N o. IS30102565261. He submitted that the status of the entry is shown as “Active” up to 03.06.2026. It was further contended by the learned DAG that the Immigration Officer posted at an international airport or check -post is merely an executing authority and is not competent either to place or remove the name of any person in or from the ECL, PNIL, PCL, blacklist, or any stop list. According to him, the competent authority in such matters is the Directorate General, Immigration & Passports, Government of Pak istan, Islamabad. Learned DAG lastly submitted that presently the petitioner’s name continues to remain active on the Stop List , and a copy of the relevant stop-list record has been placed before this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitio ner, learned DAG, and perused the available record with their able assistance. The controversy in the instant matter revolves around the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the Stop List / PCL maintained through the Integrated Border Management System (IBMS) and whether such inclusion suffers from illegality or lack of lawful authority.

3

6. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that his name has been placed in the ECL / PNIL / PCL or some undisclosed travel restriction list without notice, without disclosure of reasons, and in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, particularly the right to movement and liberty. However, the stance taken by the respondents through the learned DAG is materially different from the position earlier asserted in Constitutional Petition No. D -1184 of 2025, as the official record now produced before this Court clearly reflects that the petitioner’s name is presently existing on the active Stop List ma intained through IBMS up to 03.06.2026. 7. The record further reveals that the entry against the petitioner contains specific particulars, including CNIC number, passport number, parentage, and a remark that the petitioner had allegedly been jailed abroad and deported as a prisoner vide File Serial IS827 and Token No. IS30102565261. Such entry cannot be termed to be vague, anonymous, or unsupported by any official basis. Prima facie, the placement of the petitioner’s name on the Stop List appears to have originated from information received through official immigration and security channels relating to his alleged deportation and incarceration abroad. In such circumstances, the matter squarely falls within the domain of national immigration control, border management, and sovereign regulatory powers of the State. 8. It is a settled proposition of law that although the right to travel abroad is recognized as a valuable right flowing from Article 15 of the Constitution, the same is not absolute and remains su bject to reasonable restrictions imposed under the law in the interest of public safety, security, international obligations, and proper immigration control. The authorities entrusted with immigration management are legally empowered to maintain and operat e stop lists where credible information exists regarding deportation, criminal antecedents, unlawful migration, or other matters having a nexus with border security and international movement of persons. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner has merely a sserted mala fide and illegality but has failed to place on record any material to rebut the official stance reflected in the IBMS record or to establish that the impugned entry has been made without lawful authority, due process, or jurisdiction. No mater ial has been produced before this Court to demonstrate that the alleged deportation record is fabricated, withdrawn, or otherwise non -existent. Mere denial by the petitioner is insufficient to dislodge the presumption attached to official acts and official record maintained by competent authorities in the ordinary course of business.

4

10. It is also significant that the FIA Immigration authorities at the airport are only implementing agencies and do not independently exercise authority either to insert or r emove names from the Stop List. The competent authority in such matters admittedly vests with the Directorate General, Immigration & Passports, Government of Pakistan. Therefore, no mala fide or unlawful conduct on the part of the immigration staff at the airport has been established. 11. This Court is mindful that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary and equitable in nature and cannot ordinarily be invoked to interfere in matters involving immigration control and security assessments unless the impugned action is shown to be patently without jurisdiction, mala fide, coram non judice, or in violation of mandatory statutory provisions. No such exceptional circumstance has been established in the present matter. On the contrary, the official record produced before this Court discloses a valid and subsisting basis for continuation of the petitioner’s name on the Stop List. 12. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness, or juris dictional defect in the action of the respondents warranting interference in constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the instant Constitutional Petition is disposed of along with all pending applications, leaving the petitioner at liberty to approach th e competent authority, namely the Directorate General, Immigration & Passports, Government of Pakistan, for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law, and if such representation is filed within one week, the same shall be decided strictly on its own merits and in accordance with law within three weeks with speaking order after hearing the petitioner. 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