• Also curbs powers to place names on passport control list for five years or more • Authority deemed beyond scope of parent law; Centre gets 30 days to revise rules LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has set aside the federal government’s power to inactivate a citizen’s passport and imp­ose a travel ban of five years or more by placing a person on the Passport Control List (PCL) — adjudicating that this authority was beyond the scope of the parent law. However, Justice Asim Hafeez upheld the government’s powers to cancel, impound, or confiscate passports, subject to the fulfilment of statutory requirements. The judgement was delivered at the Multan bench while allowing a petition filed by citizen Farhan Ali, who took up two grievances before the court. First, he sought the setting aside of an order that dismissed his representation against the placement of his name on the PCL as premature. Second, he questioned the legality and constitutionality of the power to inactivate a passport under Rule 23 of the Passports Rules, 2021, contending that such power was not provided under Section 8 of the Passports Act, 1974 , which authorised only cancellation, impounding, or confiscation of a passport. The judge noted that the petitioner’s request for removal of name from the PCL had been dec­lined under clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Passports Rules , 2021, which prescribed a normal retention period of five years or more. He observed that a person placed in Category ‘B’ might be omitted even before the completion of five years while an appeal was under consideration. Under category ‘B’, the list includes individuals refused passports for reasons other than anti-state activities. Names may also be placed in this category on the recommendations of government agencies or departments. ‘Lacking statutory backing’ Justice Hafeez held that clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 lacked statutory backing, describing it as arbitrary, disproportionate, and beyond the scope of the parent law. He noted that the provision offered no categorisation or guidelines for determining proportionate restraint and conferred unstructured discretion upon the executive. On the issue of passport inactivation, the judge held that Section 8 of the Passports Act, 1974, did not provide for inactivation. Declaring the clause substantially ultra vires the law, the judge directed the federal government to rationalise restraint periods in proportion to the nature of violations, noting that illegal overstay could not be equated with migrant smuggling, human trafficking, or criminal conduct abroad. Justice Hafeez explained that inactivation was an informal action — wrapped in obscurity — often used to avoid procedural requirements and due-process obligations under the law. He noted that “surreptitious inactivation” had caused travellers to find themselves in unexpected and humiliating situations at airports despite holding valid passports and visas. Justice Hafeez ruled that Rule 23 of the Passports Rules, 2021, conflicted with the scheme of the parent law, and that the delegated legislation failed when it exceeded statutory limits or replaced legislative judgement with executive discretion. “Inactivation of a passport manifests denial of the right to travel in a covert manner not envisaged by the Act,” the judge observed. “I hold that power to inactivate passport under Rule 23 of the Rules 2021 is beyond the scope of Section 8 of the Act 1974 and same is declared ultra vires — only the power to inactivate is declared invalid and powers to cancel, impound or confiscate are intact and exercisable subject to the existence of conditions and fulfilment of requirements,” the judge wrote in the verdict. ‘30 days’ The judge ordered that the verdict would take effect after 30 days to allow the federal government to revise the rules in conformity with Section 8 of the Passports Act, 1974. He allowed the petition and the impugned order dated Oct 6, 2025, was set aside. The government was directed to decide the petitioner’s representation afresh in light of the judgement. The verdict was announced after hearing arguments from the petitioner’s counsel, law officers representing the federal government, and officials from the Federal Investigation Agency and Immigration and Passports Department. Published in Dawn, December 26th, 2025