Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 IHC 257380
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Rahma vs NADRA etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 257380. In this matter between Rahma and NADRA 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 Mr. Justice Muhammad Asif) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Muhammad Asif DECISION DATE: 12-MAR-2026 CASE NO: Writ Petition-5253-2025 CITATION: 2026 IHC 257380 PARTIES: Rahma VS NADRA etc LAW / SECTION: under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 | under Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 | under Section 5 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 | under Section 17,when read conjointly with Rule 23 of the Rules, 1952 SUBJECT: Miscelleneous, Other REMARKS: Seeks issuance of CNIC / NICOP. ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WRIT PETITION NO. 5253 OF 2025 Rahma Vs. NADRA through its Chairman, Islamabad, etc.
Petitioner by : Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, Advocate. Respondent by : Ms. Azra Batool Kazmi, AAG. Ms. Kiran Zarif, Law Officer, NADRA. Date of hearing : 12.03.2026.
Muhammad Asif, J: - Through the instant constitutional petition instituted under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the “ Constitution”), the Petitioner, Mst. Rahma, calls into question the legality and propriety of decision date d 07.10.2025, rendered by the Respondent, National Database and Registration Authority (“NADRA”), whereby her Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) bearing No. 42000-0903874-2 was blocked and her request for renewal declined. The Petitioner seeks a de claration that the impugned decision is unlawful, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect, being violative of due process, coupled with a direction to the Respondent to process and issue a valid CNIC in accordance with law. 2. The factual matrix, as set forth in the petition, reveals that the Petitioner was issued CNIC No. 42000 -0903874-2 by NADRA and claims to be the daughter of late Muhammad Kabir and late Mst. Fatima Khatoon, both asserted to have been long -standing residents of Karachi. It is the Petitioner’s case that her father possessed a domicile certificate evidencing his birth and residence in Karachi, 2 | P a g e
thereby establishing the family’s roots within the territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan. The Petitioner was married to one Abdullah Selamat Khan on 08.05.2002, and it is not disputed that her husband and their seven children are holders of valid CNICs as well as Machine Readable Passports (MRPs). 3. The controversy appears to have originated from a report dated 12.07.2016, prepared by the Monitoring & Evaluation Department of NADRA, wherein the Petitioner was described as “Bangla - speaking” and suspected to be of Bengali/Burmese origin, while her father, Muhammad Kabir, was reported as “untraceable.” On the basis of the said report, a show -cause notice was issued under Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000. In response thereto, the Petitioner appeared before the Regional Verification Board, Karachi, on 15.02.2023, and, according to her, furnished all relevant documents to s ubstantiate her claim of Pakistani nationality, including CNICs of her deceased parents along with corroborative material. Subsequently, the Regional Head Office of NADRA, Islamabad, vide decision dated 07.10.2025, rejected the Petitioner’s claim. The impu gned decision records that the Petitioner is “Bangla -speaking” and was required to produce documentary evidence demonstrating her or her family’s presence in Pakistan prior to 16 December 1971, which, according to the Respondent, she failed to produce. The decision further refers to a report of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), which, by the Respondent’s own acknowledgment, could not ascertain the Petitioner’s national status. Consequently, the Petitioner’s CNIC was blocked. Aggrieved thereof, the Petitioner ha s invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned action of the Respondent in refusing issuance and renewal of CNIC to a person who prima facie holds citizenship documents constitutes a direct infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly Articles 4, 9, 10 -A, 14, 15, 18, and 25. It is argued that the Petitioner’s lineage, supported by her father’s 3 | P a g e
domicile, CNIC, and long -standing residence in Karach i, unequivocally establishes her status as a citizen of Pakistan by descent under Section 5 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. It is further contended that the requirement of producing documentary evidence prior to 16 December 1971 is applicable only t o persons claiming migration from Bangladesh under Section 16-A of the said Act and is wholly inapplicable to the Petitioner’s case. The findings of the Respondent are thus asserted to be perverse, discriminatory, and contrary to its own record. Learned co unsel also highlights the inconsistency in the Respondent’s stance, inasmuch as CNICs and passports have been issued to the Petitioner’s husband and seven children, yet the same recognition is denied to her, in violation of the doctrine of equality and con sistency. It is emphasized that the issuance of token dated 05.04.2023 constitutes an official acknowledgment by the Respondent of the Petitioner’s application for renewal, which cannot subsequently be negated on the basis of a vague vigilance report of 20 16. It is lastly argued that the blocking of the CNIC without proper notice violates Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, and that the proceedings before the Verification Board were tainted by misapplication of law. 5. Conversely, learned Law Officer f or NADRA has opposed the petition. At the outset, it is contended that the petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an alternate remedy, namely, approaching the Federal Government under Section 16 -A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 for issuance of a citizenship certificate. It is further argued that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and had allegedly obtained a NICOP by misrepresenting herself as a Pakistani national, despite being reported as an alien Bengali national in the Monitoring & Evaluation report dated 12.07.2016. On merits, it is submitted that a show-cause notice under Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, was duly served upon the Petitioner, and she was afforded an opportunity of hearing before the Regional Verification Board, Karachi, on 15.02.2023. During the proceedings, the Petitioner produced copies of her parents’ MNICs; however, no record was 4 | P a g e
found in respect of her father’s MNIC, while the RG -III record pertaining to her mother’s MNIC was found to relate to another individual. It is further submitted that the Petitioner herself furnished an affidavit admitting that she possessed no documentary evidence prior to 16 December 1971. In terms of the applicable policy, such documents are mandato ry. In absence thereof, coupled with the inability of the Intelligence Bureau to verify her national status, the Regional Verification Board, Islamabad, vide unanimous decision dated 07.10.2025, rejected her claim. It is thus prayed that the petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Law Officer for NADRA at considerable length and have carefully examined the record, including the documents appended with the petition as well as the parawise comments filed o n behalf of the Respondent. 7. Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it is apposite to first address the preliminary objection raised by the learned Law Officer regarding the maintainability of the present petition on account of the availabili ty of an alternate remedy. It is contended that the Petitioner ought to have approached the Federal Government under Section 16 -A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, for issuance of a citizenship certificate. 8. It is a well -settled principle of constit utional jurisprudence that the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature and equitable in its exercise. The rule requiring exhaustion of alternate remedies is not a rigid or inflexible doctr ine; rather, it is a rule of prudence and self-restraint, and not a bar to jurisdiction. The Superior Courts have consistently held that where the impugned action of an administrative authority is patently without lawful authority, arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of fundamental rights, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court may be invoked notwithstanding the availability of an alternate remedy. In this regard, the august principles laid down by the Lahore High Court in 5 | P a g e
Umar Ahmad Ghumman v. Go vernment of Pakistan and others (PLD 2002 Lahore 521) are instructive. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow for ease of reference: “Under Article 199 of the Constitution, the High Court while enforcing the fundamental rights can declare a law to be void if it is inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The powers of High Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution are wide and in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution it can pass any order which would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of a case. The expression „as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights‟ appearing in Article 199(1)(c) in the Constitution confers upon the Constitutional Co urt a discretion to provide relief under the law to a citizen which may be necessary.” 9. In the present case, the Petitioner does not seek a declaration of citizenship de novo. Rather, her case rests on the assertion that she is a citizen by descent whose CNIC had already been issued by the Respondent authority and was subsequently blocked without adherence to due process of law. The gravamen of her grievance is not the initial determination of citizenship, but the arbitrary deprivation of an existing and recognized civil status. The remedy contemplated under Section 16 -A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, is primarily intended for individuals whose citizenship status is indeterminate or who seek a fresh adjudication thereof. The Petitioner’s case stand s on a materially different footing, inasmuch as she seeks restoration of a right that has been withdrawn in an arbitrary and legally unsustainable manner. Relegating the Petitioner to approach the Federal Government under the said provision would not only be misconceived but would also result in unnecessary prolongation of hardship. Furthermore, the conduct of the Respondent itself lends credence to the Petitioner’s grievance. 6 | P a g e
The issuance of CNICs and passports to the Petitioner’s husband and seven children, the acceptance of her renewal application along with the prescribed fee vide Token No. 505492413616, and the subsequent rejection of her claim on vague and inconclusive grounds, cumulatively demonstrate an element of arbitrariness which attracts the co nstitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In such circumstances, it would neither be just nor proper to deny relief on the technical ground of alternate remedy. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary objection regarding maintainability is hereby ove rruled. The instant petition is held to be maintainable and is accordingly taken up for adjudication on merits. 11. For the proper adjudication of the controversy in hand, it is expedient to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1951”): "4. Citizenship by birth. Every person born in Pakistan after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of Pakistan by birth: Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this se ction if at the time of his birth (a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of an external sovereign power accredited in Pakistan and is not a citizen of Pakistan; or (b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy." "5. Citizenship by descent. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of Pakistan by descent if his parent is a citizen of Pak istan at the time of his birth: Provided that if the parent of such person is a citizen of Pakistan by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Pakistan by virtue of this section unless (a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outsid e Pakistan the 7 | P a g e
birth is registered at a Pakistan Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Pakistan Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Pakistan Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or (b) that person's parent is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Pakistan." "14. Dual citizenship or nationality not permitted. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section if any person is a citizen of Pakistan under the provisions of this Act, and is at the same time a citizen or national of any other country, he shall, unless he makes a declaration according to the laws of that other country renouncing his status as citizen or national thereof, cease to be a citizen of Pakistan. (1A) Nothing in sub -section (1) applies to a person who has not attained twenty-one years of his age. (2) Nothing in sub -section (1) shall apply to any person who is a subject of an acceding State so far as concerns his being a subject of that State. (3) Nothing in sub -section (1) shall apply, or shall be deemed ever to have applied at any stage, to a person who, being or having at any time been, a citizen of Pakistan, is also the citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or of such oth er country as the Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf. (4) Nothing in sub -section (1) shall apply to a female citizen of Pakistan who is married to a person who is not a citizen of Pakistan." 8 | P a g e
"14A. Renunc iation of citizenship. (1) If any citizen of Pakistan residing outside Pakistan, who is not a minor and (a) is also a citizen or national of another country, or (b) has been given by the competent authority of another country any valid document assuring hi m of the grant of the citizenship or nationality of that other country upon renouncing his citizenship of Pakistan, makes in the prescribed manner a declaration renouncing his citizenship of Pakistan, the declaration shall be registered by the prescribed a uthority; and upon such registration that person shall cease to be a citizen of Pakistan: Provided that, if any such declaration is made during any war in which Pakistan may be engaged, registration thereof shall be withheld until the Federal Government otherwise directs." "16. Deprivation of citizenship. (1) A citizen of Pakistan shall cease to be a citizen of Pakistan if he is deprived of that citizenship by an order under the next following sub - sections. (6) Before making an order under this section the Federal Government shall give the person against whom it is proposed to make the order notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to make the order and calling upon him to show cause why it should not be made. (7) If it is propo sed to make the order on any of the grounds specified in sub -sections (2) and (3) of this section and the person against whom it is proposed to make the order applies in the prescribed manner for an inquiry, the Federal Government shall, and in any other 9 | P a g e
case may, refer the case to a committee of inquiry consisting of a chairman, being a person possessing judicial experience, appointed by the Federal Government and of such other members appointed by the Federal Government as it thinks proper." "16A. Certain persons to lose and others to retain citizenship. (1) All persons who, at any time before the sixteenth day of December, 1971, were citizens of Pakistan domiciled in the territories which before the said day constituted the Province of East Pakistan and who (i) were residing in those territories on that day and are residing therein since that day voluntarily or otherwise shall cease to be citizens of Pakistan; (ii) were residing in Pakistan on that day but after that day voluntarily migrated to those terri tories shall cease to be citizens of Pakistan; (iii) were residing in Pakistan on that day and are voluntarily residing therein since that day shall continue to be citizens of Pakistan; (iv) were residing in those territories on that day but voluntarily ca me to Pakistan after that day with the approval of the Federal Government shall continue to be citizens of Pakistan: Provided that any persons referred to in clause (i) whose repatriation to Pakistan has been agreed to by the Federal Government and who hav e not been so repatriated before the commencement of Pakistan Citizenship (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978, shall continue to be citizens of Pakistan." "17. Certificate of domicile. The Federal Government may upon an application being made to it in the 10 | P a g e
prescribed manner containing the prescribed particulars grant a certificate of domicile to any person in respect of whom it is satisfied that he has ordinarily resided in Pakistan for a period of not less than one year immediately before the making of the applicat ion, and has acquired a domicile therein.” 12. A plain and meaningful reading of the afore -reproduced provisions of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, leaves no manner of doubt that the statutory framework recognizes multiple modes through which citizenship may be acquired, inter alia, citizenship by birth and citizenship by descent. The controversy in the present case engages what the superior Courts have consistently described as the “precious right” of citizenship indeed, a right that forms the very foundation of an individual’s legal and constitutional existence within a State. In Umar Ahmad Ghumman v. Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 2002 Lahore 521), it was emphatically held that the right to citizenship is the most valuable right that an individual may possess. For ready reference, the rele vant extract reads as under: - "A study of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan would indicate that certain rights have been granted to all „persons‟ residing in the State while some rights are available to only „citizens‟. For instance, the right be treated in accordance wi th law (Article 4), right of freedom of movement (Article 15), right of freedom of assembly (Article 16), of freedom of Association (Article 17), of trade (Article 18), of speech (Article 19) and to profess religion and of equality before law and equal pro tection of law (Article 25) are available to citizens alone. On the other hand right to life (Article 9), right to safeguard against illegal detention (Article 10) and of inviolability of dignity of man (Article 14) are available to all persons irrespective of their nationality or citizenship. The 11 | P a g e
citizen under the Constitution enjoys a special status. The right to be a citizen is, therefore, a precious right. It is the most valuable right that an individual may have in a State." 13. This Court has, in W.P. No. 963/2025, further reinforced the aforesaid principle by holding that citizenship constitutes the most fundamental and valuable right, and that once a person is recognized as a citizen, such status cannot be withdrawn except strictly in accordance with law and due process. The relevant extract is reproduced below: - "Citizenship is the most valuable basic right of a human. A person once registered as a citizen cannot be deprived of citizenship otherwise than as is provided under the law. Moreover, Artic le 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) affirms that every individual has the right to recognition as a person before the law. Article 15of the same declares that everyone has the right of nationality, and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Citizenship is the primary bond between a State and an individual, enabling the latter to enjoy all rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Citizenship Act and the Citizenship Rules, aligned with constitutional and international mandate, ensure due process. This fundamental right cannot be revoked arbitrarily or recklessly." 14. This Court has also had the occasion to examine the legality of denial of identity documents to cit izens in W.P. No. 2978 of 2025 (Muhammad Shareef Mian v. Ministry of Interior), wherein it was categorically held that once citizenship is conferred under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, the same can only be withdrawn through a lawful process, strictly in 12 | P a g e
accordance with due process of law. The relevant observations are as follows: - "The contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner and his family members have acquired CNICs, NICOPs, and other documents through misrepresentation or concealment of f acts is wholly misconceived and unsustainable. Equally untenable is the further assertion that the acquisition of CNIC, NICOP or Passport does not by itself confer the right of citizenship. It is a settled principle that once citizenship is conferred under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, the same can only be revoked or cancelled through a lawful process of inquiry and in strict adherence to due process of law." "The record placed before this Court demonstrates that the CNICs and NICOPs of the Petitioner and his family members were duly issued by NADRA, the statutory body entrusted with maintaining the national database and regulating the issuance of identity documents under the NADRA Ordinance, 2000. There is nothing on record to indicate that these docu ments were obtained by fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioner or his family members. Mere bald assertions by the Respondents, without any supporting material, cannot suffice to dislodge the presumption of correctness attached to official documents duly issued by a competent authority." "Once such recognition has been formally granted by NADRA and Passports have been issued by the competent authority, the Respondents cannot be permitted to disown their own official acts at this belated stage, especially when no lawful cancellation proceedings were commenced or show -cause notices issued to the Petitioner or his family members. Mere 13 | P a g e
refusal to process their applications, without adopting the prescribed legal procedure, is arbitrary and violative of due process guaranteed under Article 10 - A of the Constitution." 15. In W.P. No. 1412 of 2025 ( Muhammad Hanif Ismail v. Ministry of Interior ), this Court dealt with a closely analogous situation, where the rejection of a NICOP application was predicated upon the alleged ethnic origin of the applicant. The Court, while examining the statutory scheme, observed as under: - "This Petition arises from the rejection of the Petitioner's wife's application for a National Identity Card for Overseas Pakistanis ( NICOP) by NADRA, on the stated ground that the Petitioner's wife is an alien as she allegedly belongs to Burmese origin. The matter calls for determination of the Petitioner's wife's status under the Act, 1951, and whether, in law, she qualifies as a citizen of Pakistan." "There is no dispute regarding the well -settled proposition that under Section 17 of the Act, 1951, the Federal Government is empowered to grant a Certificate of Domicile to any individual in respect of whom it is satisfied that the person has ordinarily resided in Pakistan for a continuous period of not less than one year immediately preceding the application and has acquired domicile within the territory of Pakistan." "Bare reading of the above provisions shows that the issuance of a Domicile Certificate under Section 17, when read conjointly with Rule 23 of the Rules, 1952, is indicative of the legal status of an individual as a domiciled person of Pakistan. Judicial pronouncements have further affirmed that the term "domicile" under Section 17, in this context, signifies a person's settled status as a citizen of a particular state or country." 14 | P a g e…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.