Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building, in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has declared that blocking a citizen’s Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) to enforce a money decree is unlawful, ruling that such action exceeds the powers granted to executing courts under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The decision was announced by a two-member bench comprising Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan in a civil petition for leave to appeal. Justice Akhtar authored the detailed order.
The case arose from execution proceedings initiated after a money decree was passed in a summary suit in favour of respondent Idrees Ahmed against petitioner Agha Abid Majeed Khan.
During the execution process, the trial court ordered the blocking of the petitioner’s CNIC until he furnished surety for the decretal amount. The Sindh High Court (SHC) later upheld that order, observing that blocking the CNIC was a step toward enforcing lawful court orders and noting that the decree had remained unexecuted since March 2016.
Challenging the SHC’s decision, the petitioner contended that no provision of law empowered an executing court to block a CNIC as part of decree enforcement. The petitioner’s counsel, Ahmer Bilal Soofi, argued that such an order was beyond the jurisdiction of the executing court.
During the hearing, both the Sindh additional advocate general and the additional attorney general supported the petitioner’s position, submitting that the SHC’s order was not legally sustainable. The court appreciated the assistance provided by the law officers.
In its ruling, the SC examined Section 51 of the CPC, which outlines the permissible modes of executing a decree. It observed that while clauses (a) to (d) specify particular methods of execution, clause (e) allows execution “in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require.”
However, the bench held that this general provision cannot be interpreted so broadly as to permit measures that lose connection with the statutory framework. Justice Akhtar noted that the decree in question was a simple money decree and did not justify blocking the CNIC of the judgment debtor.
The court cautioned that although a robust approach is necessary to ensure the execution of decrees, it must not become so excessive as to deprive a citizen of essential aspects of daily life.
The judgment emphasized that a CNIC is not merely a statutory formality or luxury but has become indispensable for conducting ordinary affairs in modern society.
Depriving a person of access to their CNIC, the SC held, amounts to curtailing a fundamental necessity of life and cannot be considered a proper exercise of judicial discretion under general execution powers.
The bench also took note of a 2018 amendment made by the Peshawar High Court (PHC) to the CPC in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P), introducing Rule 117 in Order XXI, which expressly permits blocking of a CNIC as a mode of compelling attendance or completing execution proceedings.
However, the SC clarified that this provision applies only within the K-P and has no application in Sindh. The court further observed that the very inclusion of an express provision in the K-P indicates that, in the absence of such specific authorization, no such power can be implied under general execution clauses.
Reserving its opinion on the constitutional or legal validity of the K-P amendment for an appropriate case, the SC concluded that the SHC had erred in upholding the executing court’s order. The court converted the leave petition into an appeal and allowed it, thereby setting aside the impugned order.
