Pakistani citizenship. After 18 April 2000, the word "father" was replaced by "parent" in Section 5 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951, under which the children will be considered Pakistani citizens if either of the parents is a Pakistani citizen. . W.P. No.700 of 2021LHR
 |
| Pakistani citizenship. After 18 April 2000, the word "father" was replaced by "parent" in Section 5 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951, under which the children will be considered Pakistani citizens if either of the parents is a Pakistani citizen. . W.P. No.700 of 2021LHR |
۔ یہاں پورا کیس پوائنٹس کی شکل میں دوبارہ پیش کیا جا رہا ہے:
1. مدعیہ کی درخواست: مجیدہ ناز نے نادرا کے خلاف درخواست دائر کی تاکہ ان کی دو بیٹیوں کو پاکستان اوریجن کارڈ (POC) جاری کیا جائے۔
2. مدعیہ کی شہریت: مجیدہ ناز پیدائشی پاکستانی شہری ہیں اور ان کی دونوں بیٹیاں (جو کمسن ہیں) پاکستان میں پیدا ہوئیں۔
3. والد کی شہریت: مدعیہ کی بیٹیوں کا والد افغان شہری ہے، اور اسی وجہ سے نادرا نے درخواست پر سیکورٹی کلیئرنس مانگی۔
4. نادرا کا جواب: نادرا نے POC جاری کرنے سے انکار کیا کیونکہ سیکورٹی ادارے نے کلیئرنس نہیں دی تھی اور کہا کہ یہ نادرا کے اختیارات میں ہے کہ وہ ملکی دفاع اور سلامتی کے پیش نظر POC کا اجرا روک سکتا ہے۔
5. مدعیہ کا قانونی نکتہ: مدعیہ کے وکیل نے دلیل دی کہ پاکستان شہریت ایکٹ 1951 کے سیکشن 5 کے مطابق، مدعیہ چونکہ پاکستانی شہری ہیں، اس لیے ان کی بیٹیاں پاکستانی شہریت کی حق دار ہیں، اور انہیں POC ملنا چاہیے۔
6. قانون میں تبدیلی کا حوالہ: وکیل نے نشاندہی کی کہ 18 اپریل 2000 سے پہلے قانون میں صرف "والد" کا ذکر تھا، لیکن بعد میں لفظ "والدین" (parent) شامل کر دیا گیا، جس کے تحت اب مدعیہ کی بیٹیاں، جو 2013 اور 2015 میں پیدا ہوئیں، پاکستانی شہری سمجھی جائیں گی۔
7. نادرا کا دفاع: نادرا نے کہا کہ POC کا اجرا کوئی مطلق حق نہیں ہے، اور افغان شہریوں کے بچوں کے لیے سیکورٹی کلیئرنس ضروری ہے۔
8. عدالتی فیصلہ: عدالت نے نادرا کا موقف رد کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ مدعیہ کی بیٹیاں پاکستان کی شہریت رکھتی ہیں، اور انہیں POC نہ دینا غیر قانونی ہے۔
9. قانونی اصول: عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ نادرا کے پاس اختیار ضرور ہے، لیکن یہ قانون کے تحت ہے، اور کوئی ایس او پی یا پالیسی قانون کے منافی نہیں ہو سکتی۔
10. حکم: عدالت نے نادرا کو ہدایت کی کہ مدعیہ کی بیٹیوں کو پاکستان اوریجن کارڈ (POC) جاری کیا جائے۔
یہ قانونی بحث کا اہم پہلو ہے کہ قانون میں والدین کے حقوق کا اضافہ بعد میں کیا گیا، اور اسی بنا پر مدعیہ کی بیٹیاں پاکستانی شہری مانی گئیں۔
اردو خلاصہ:
مقدمہ نمبر 700/2021 میں مدعیہ مجیدہ ناز نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں نیشنل ڈیٹا بیس اینڈ رجسٹریشن اتھارٹی (نادرا) کے خلاف درخواست دائر کی کہ ان کی بیٹیوں (جو کہ کمسن ہیں) کے لیے پاکستان اوریجن کارڈ (POC) جاری کیا جائے۔ مدعیہ ایک پاکستانی شہری ہیں، جبکہ بیٹیوں کا والد افغان شہری ہے۔ مدعیہ کا موقف تھا کہ ان کی بیٹیاں پاکستان کی شہریت کی حقدار ہیں، کیونکہ وہ پاکستان کے شہری کی اولاد ہیں۔
نادرا نے سیکورٹی خدشات کے باعث درخواست مسترد کر دی، اور کہا کہ POC کا اجرا کوئی مطلق حق نہیں ہے، اور یہ سیکورٹی اداروں کی کلیئرنس سے مشروط ہے۔ نادرا کے مطابق سیکورٹی کلیئرنس نہ ملنے کی وجہ سے POC جاری نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
عدالت نے نادرا کے موقف کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ مدعیہ کی بیٹیاں پاکستان کی شہری ہیں، اور انہیں POC جاری نہ کرنا قانونی طور پر درست نہیں ہے۔ عدالت نے حکم دیا کہ مدعیہ کی بیٹیوں کو POC جاری کیا جائے۔
عدالت نے یہ بھی کہا کہ نادرا کا اختیار قانون کے دائرے میں استعمال ہونا چاہیے، اور کوئی بھی پالیسی یا ایس او پی قانون کے خلاف نہیں ہو سکتی۔
Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT
RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
Case No.
Writ Petition No.700 of 2021
Majida Naz
Versus
National Database and Registration
Authority and 02 others
Sr.No.of
order/
Proceedings
Date of
order/
Proceedings
Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties
or counsel, where necessary.
04.10.2021 Malik Amjad Ali, Advocate for petitioner.
Malik Ihtisham Saleem, Assistant Attorney
General.
Mst. Majida Naz being a Pakistani Citizen by birth
and having computerized National Identity Card
No.37101-8334577-0 applied on 09th March, 2020 for
issuance of Pakistan Origin Cards (hereinafter referred to
as “POC”) for her minor daughters, namely Javeria Inam
Khan and Maryam Inam Khan (hereinafter to be called as
‘minors’) both born on 22nd September, 2013 and 12th April,
2015, respectively. Her request, however, was finally
regretted, hence she approached this Court by filing instant
petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with the following prayer: -
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ
petition may very kindly be accepted and
respondents may very kindly be directed to issue
the POC for daughters of the petitioner in
accordance with law.
Any other relief which this honourable court
deems fit may also be granted to the petitioner”
2.
Stance taken by respondents No.1 & 3 in their
parawise comments, precisely, is that it was not an
absolute right of the daughters of petitioner to obtain POC
Writ Petition No.700 of 2021
2
and the same was declined as per the rules. According to
them, issuance of POC was subject to sovereignty,
integrity, security and defence of Pakistan and the
Authority has power to refuse registration or issuance of
card and in petitioner’s case security agency did not clear
to issue the POC to petitioner and refused to issue NOC
for issuance of POC. Respondent No.2 in his written reply
came up with the following version: -
“The instant case relates to the issue of grant of
POC (Pakistan Origin Card) to the petitioner’s
daughters of List-B country, namely, Javeria
Inam Khan & Maryam Inam Khan. Ministry of
Interior processes the case for grant of POC to
applicant(s) of List-B country, as per its policy
dated 02nd April, 2013 (Annex-I). The grant of
POC to applicants of List-B country is subject to
security clearance of security agencies. The case
of petitioner was not supported for grant of POC
by security agency and the same was forwarded
to NADRA (Annex-II) on 9th November, 2020.
Furthermore, grant of POC is not an absolute
right of the petitioner. As provided under rule 13
of the National Database and Registration
Authority (Pakistan Origin Card) Rules, 2002
(Annex-III) “any person who is otherwise
eligible for registration and issuance of a card,
may be refused registration, or issuance of a
card, if in the opinion of the Authority, the
registration, or issuance, of a card to such
person is prejudicial to the sovereignty,
integrity, security, or defence of Pakistan or any
part thereof, or to friendly relations of Pakistan
with foreign states or countries, or to the
maintenance of law and order in Pakistan or any
part thereof, or to the public interest”
3.
Learned counsel for petitioner contended that
petitioner since is a Pakistani citizen, therefore, in view of
the provisions of section 5 of Pakistan Citizenship Act,
1951 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’), the minors are
also citizens of Pakistan and entitled to get POC. Learned
counsel explained that although father of the minors is an
Writ Petition No.700 of 2021
3
Afghan citizen, yet a person born after the commencement
of the Act shall be citizen of Pakistan by descent if his
parent is citizen of Pakistan at the time of his birth.
Learned counsel further explained that admittedly, the
petitioner was born on 18.12.1984 in Pakistan, therefore,
her children would be counted as citizens of Pakistan by
descent as contemplated under the provisions of section 5
of the Act. Learned counsel added that as per the
provisions of the National Database and Registration
Authority (Pakistan Origin Card) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Rules’) minors were entitled to receive
POC. Learned counsel further added that respondents have
declined the issuance of POC on the grounds which are not
tenable for the reason that SOPs etc issued under any rules,
in no way militate against the statutory provisions.
According to learned counsel for petitioner, the authority
cannot clothe itself with power which is not given to it
under the provisions of statute, therefore, any SOPs made
under the statute would not make the statutory provisions
redundant. It was, therefore, concluded that minors being
citizen of Pakistan, are entitled to the issuance of POC.
4.
As against that, learned Assistant Attorney General
contended that as per SOPs, issuance of POC in respect of
Indians, Afghanis and list-B countries was subject to
security clearance and since minors were the daughters of
Afghan citizen, therefore, their case was to be referred for
security clearance and in view of non-issuance of security
clearance, POC were declined. Added that as per the
provisions of rule-13 of the Rules, any person who is
otherwise eligible for registration and issuance of card,
may be refused registration or issuance of card if in the
opinion of authority, the registration or issuance of the
Writ Petition No.700 of 2021
4
card to such person is prejudicial to the integrity,
sovereignty, security or defence of Pakistan. It was
concluded that petitioner’s request was rightly declined by
the respondents and has also payed for dismissal of instant
petition.
5.
Heard. Record perused.
6.
Undeniably, petitioner who is real mother of the
minors, is a Pakistani citizen and minors by virtue of the
provisions of section 5 of the Act are also Pakistani
citizens. Provisions of section 5 are reproduced hereunder
for the facility of ready reference: -
“5. Citizenship by descent.- Subject to the
provisions of section, a person born after the
commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of
Pakistan by descent if his [parent] is a citizen of
Pakistan 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 outside Pakistan, the 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”.
Bare reading of above suggests that a person who is born
after the commencement of the Act, shall be citizen of
Pakistan if his parent is citizen of Pakistan at the time of
his birth. Both the minors who have been born to petitioner
and a foreign national father after 18.04.2000, would be
considered and treated as citizens of Pakistan. Prior to this
date, the word ‘father’ was mentioned in section 5 of the
Writ Petition No.700 of 2021
5
Act and after substitution of word ‘father’ by the word
‘parent’, the minors who were born to petitioner on 22nd
September, 2013 and 12th April, 2015, respectively, were
Pakistani citizens and in this way, they were entitled to the
grant of POC. Learned Law Officer utterly remained
unable to furnish any justifiable reason for non-issuance
of POC to the minors who by operation of provisions of
law are Pakistani citizens. He also remained fail to satisfy
this Court as to how issuance of POC to the minors who
admittedly are Pakistani citizens, would be prejudicial to
the sovereignty, integrity, security or defence of Pakistan
or would be against public interest in any manner
whatsoever. It is also an established principle of law where
a discretion is conferred upon any authority, the same has
to be exercised judiciously and fairly. In the instant matter,
discretion, on the face of it, has been exercised without any
lawful justification. It may further be shown that no SOP
can be made or given effect that is inconsistent with the
parent statute. Any SOP or even rules framed under statute
cannot go beyond the scope of Act. Reliance in this regard
may safely be placed on case reported as “Suo Moto Case
No.11 of 2011” (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 389),
“Khawaja Ahmad Hassaan v. Government of Punjab and
others” (2005 SCMR 186), “Messrs. Mehraj Flour Mills
and others v. Provincial Government and others” (2001
SCMR 1806) and “Muhammad Uneeb Ahmed v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of
Science and Technology, Islamabad and others” (2019
MLD 1347). In Mehraj Flour Mills case supra, it was held
as under;
“There is no cavil with the proposition that the
rule shall always be consistent with the Act and
no rule shall militate or render the provisions of
Writ Petition No.700 of 2021
6
the Act ineffective. The test of consistency is
whether the provisions of the act and that of rule
can stand together. Main object of rule is to
implement the provisions of the Act and in case of
conflict between them the rule must give way to
the provisions of the act. In any case, the rules
shall not be repugnant to the enactment under
which they are made”.
7.
So far as argument of learned Assistant Attorney
General that in view of the provisions of rule-13 of the
Rules, any person who is otherwise eligible for registration
and issuance of the card, may be refused registration or
issuance of card if in the opinion of Authority, registration
or issuance of card to such person is prejudicial to the
integrity, sovereignty, security or defence of Pakistan and
request of petitioner was rightly declined by the
respondents on that ground, is concerned, it may be shown
that public functionaries have to perform their functions in
accordance with law and must use their discretionary
powers honestly, fairly, justly and transparently without
any element of arbitrariness and caprice. The provisions of
section 24-A as inserted in General Clauses (Amendment)
Act, 1997 contemplate that where, by or under any
enactment a power to make any order or give any direction
is conferred on any authority, office or person, such power
shall be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the
advancement of the purpose of the enactment. In the
instant case, discretion exercised by the respondents, on
the face of it, appears to be unreasonable for the simple
reason that minors, by operation of provisions of section 5
of the Act, are citizens of Pakistan and cannot be held
disentitled to receive POC merely on the basis of some
subjective apprehensions on the part of respondents
particularly when the same are based on the reports of
Writ Petition No.700 of 2021
7
agencies. Indeed, in the instant matter discretion conferred
upon the respondents has not been exercised fairly and
transparently, the same rather has been exercised by
militating against the provisions of section 5 of the Act.
Admittedly, the provisions of any law, in no way envisage
arbitrary discretion being conferred on any State
functionary or the holder of a Public Office and where
discretion has been conferred, the same has to be exercised
justly, fairly, honestly and transparently. Guidance is
sought from the dicta laid down by august Supreme Court
of Pakistan in cases reported as “Malik Munsif Awan,
Advocate, Chairman, Pakistan Justice Party, Lahore v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law and
Justice, Islamabad and others” (PLD 2021 Supreme
Court 379), “Suo Moto Case No.18 of 2010: In the matter
of (Violation of Public Procurement Rules, 2004)” (PLD
2011 Supreme Court 927) and “Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and
others” (2010 SCMR 1301).
8.
The upshot of above discussion is that petition in
hand is allowed and respondents are directed to issue POC
to the minors in accordance with law.
(SHAKIL AHMAD)
JUDGE
Announced in open Court on ________
JUDGE
Comments
Post a Comment