Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 IHC 240206
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Miss Wajeeha Habbibi etc. vs FOP etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 240206. In this matter between Miss Wajeeha Habbibi etc. and FOP etc., 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.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar DECISION DATE: 17-NOV-2025 CASE NO: Writ Petition-1054-2025 CITATION: 2025 IHC 240206 PARTIES: Miss Wajeeha Habbibi etc. VS FOP etc. LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Miscelleneous, Other REMARKS: Seeks direction upon respondents to issue citizenship to the petitioner. Challenges letter dated 07.02.2024 ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition No. 1054 of 2025
Wajeeya Habib and another versus Directorate General of Immigration & Passports, etc.
Date of hearing: 17.11.2025 Petitioner by: Mr. L uqman Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent by: Mr. Arshid Mahmood Kiani Deputy Attorney General.
JUDGEMENT
SARDAR MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ DOGAR CJ :- This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution") has been filed by the Petitioner No.1 Mst. Wajeeya Habibi, seeking direction(s) to the respondents to grant her Pakistani citizenship and related relief, and to set aside letters dated 07.02.2024, 11.09.2024 and 19.11.2024 issued b y the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 is an Afghan national. She contracted marriage with petitioner No.2 Farooq Ali, on 12.04.2008, and from this wedlock four children were born, all of whom hold Pakistani birth records. Petitioner No.1 applied for Pakistani citizenship in 2015 , her case was processed through the usual mechanism of security verifications and a fter nearly ten years of correspondence, scrutiny, and clearance, her case was approved and she was granted an ass urance letter for citizenship dated 07.02.2024 subject W.P.No. 1054 of 2025
2 to submission of a Renunciation Certificate of Afghan Citizenship issued by the competent Afghan authority in Kabul. 3. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner approached the Embassy of Afghani stan multiple times but she was categorically informed that renunciation certificates are not issued at the Embassy level, and such request must be made to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kabul. The petitioner asserted that she cannot travel to Afghanis tan because doing so would leave her stateless and unable to re -enter Pakistan. Learned counsel further contended that the requirement of a renunciation certificate is unreasonable, disproportionate, and contrary to law. Learned counsel relied upon Articles 9 & 25 of the Constitution, Pakistan’s obligations under the UDHR, and the judgment of “Sharifan v. Federation of Pakistan ” (PLD 1998 Lahore 59) . Therefore, the letters dated 07.02.2024, 11.09.2024, and 19.11.2024 requiring submission of the renunciation certificate are unlawful. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Attorney General, opposed the petition, resisting his case firmly on the mandatory nature of the statute. He submitted that the requirement for renunciation is a condition precedent unequivoc ally contained in Section 14 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 and Rule 19 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952. He also maintained that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Pakistan) has verified that the Afghan authorities only process renunciation in Kabul, but confirmed that this factual difficulty, however regrettable, cannot empower the Executive or the Judiciary to waive a requirement enacted by the Parliament. Furthermore, multiple communications were sent to the Afghan Embassy and Ministry of Fo reign Affairs (Pakistan) requesting cooperation, but the Afghan Embassy expressly stated that renunciation certificate can only be issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kabul. 5. Arguments heard. Record perused. 6. The fundamental principle gove rning for the grant of Pakistani citizenship is enshrined in Section 14(1) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 . This provision clearly stipulates that a person who is a W.P.No. 1054 of 2025
3 citizen of Pakistan and a citizen of any other country shall cease to be a Pakistani citizen unless they make a declaration "according to the laws of that other country renouncing his status as citizen or national thereof." The Petitioner's counsel argues that Section 14 only applies to existing Pakistani citizens , instead, this is a narro w and untenable interpretation. The assurance letter of 07.02.2024 did not confer the final citizenship rather it was a conditional approval and in order to receive the final Certificate of Citizenship, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the renunciation requirement. Moreover, as per Rule 19 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, an applicant ‘shall produce satisfactory evidence that he has made for such a declaration’. The term "satisfactory evidence" in Rule 19 must be read in conjunction wi th Section 14(1) , which requires the renunciation declaration to be made "according to the laws of that other country." The evidence must prove the completion of the foreign state's legal process. Respondent's Report furnishes the clear Note Verbale dated 31.10.2024, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by stating that the renunciation requires the petitioner to visit the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Afghanistan. This Note Verbale also defines the lawful procedure under Afghan law. An affidavit or a mere newspaper advertisement, while demonstrating intent, cannot legally constitute proof of effective renunciation as per the laws of Afghanistan. To hold otherwise would allow the Petitioner to circumvent the mandatory statutory requirement through an unauthorized procedure. The Petitioner highlights the extreme difficulty and potential risk of travel, the 10 -year delay, and the principle of ‘Actus curiae neminem gravabit (no one should suffer due to the delay in procedure). While the Court acknowledges the Petitioner’s prolonged suffering and hardship, the writ jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be used to bypass a mandatory requirement of substantive law based on the doctrine of impossibility or hardship. The remedy for the petitioner lies in fulfilling t he statutory condition. The delay in the security clearance process has been cured by the W.P.No. 1054 of 2025
4 issuance of the Assurance Letter. The remaining delay is now attributable to the Petitioner's inability to comply with the condition imposed by law , not a fault of th e Department. This Court cannot compel the Respondent s to issue a Certificate of Citizenship in clear disregard of the mandatory precondition set out in the governing statute (Section 14(1) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951). Doing so would be equivale nt to directing the executive to act ultra vires its powers and would amount to judicial overreach into the legislative domain. 7. In light of the statutory provisions, particularly Section 14(1) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, which makes renunci ation of foreign nationality according to the laws of that country a mandatory pre-requisite, the Court finds no legal infirmity in the conditional approval letters dated 07.02.2024, 11.09.2024, and 19.11.2024. Therefore, the instant petitioner is dismissed accordingly.
(CHIEF JUSTICE) A.R.SHAH