The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has warned passport authorities of contempt proceedings over their alleged failure to implement court orders directing the removal of petitioners’ names from the Passport Control List (PCL).
Justice Mohammad Azam Khan issued the warning while hearing contempt petitions filed by Afnan Khan, Khurram Shahzad and Hadi Hussain. Assistant Attorney General Raja Zamiruddin and lawyers for the petitioners appeared before the court.
The petitioners’ counsel told the court that their clients’ names continued to remain on the PCL despite clear judicial orders for their removal, prompting them to seek contempt proceedings.
Justice Khan directed Director General of Immigration and Passports Mohammad Ali Randhawa to appear in person. When the DG appeared, the judge asked whether he had personally sought the relevant list concerning the petitioners.
The court was informed that numerous contempt petitions had been filed over the non-implementation of its orders. According to the counsel, around 16 such petitions were pending before Justice Khan, while more than 100 similar cases were pending before the IHC.
The court was also informed that the Ministry of Interior had constituted a committee to examine matters relating to the PCL.
Justice Khan questioned the legal authority under which the committee had been formed and asked whether any law empowered it to review or scrutinise a high court order.
The counsel explained that the committee was responsible for determining whether individuals’ names should be removed from the PCL.
The judge rejected the notion that an administrative committee could review or effectively sit in appeal over a judicial order.
“You cannot say that the court’s decision will be scrutinised by the committee,” Justice Khan observed.
The counsel said cases referred by the IHC had been placed before the committee, which had decided around 346 cases. However, the minutes of its meetings had yet to be received.
A lawyer representing the Directorate General of Immigration and Passports sought two days to respond, arguing that the order concerning Afnan Khan had already been implemented.
The petitioners’ counsel disputed the claim and questioned why private counsel was appearing for a government institution when a state counsel was already present.
He argued that the court had ordered the immediate removal of the petitioners’ names from the PCL, but the authorities had instead subjected the matter to what he described as a bureaucratic process that undermined the court’s directions.
The IHC adjourned the hearing until next week.
