• LHC says absence of record undermines transparency
• Law officer hints at review mechanism for offloading
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that immigration authorities must record and communicate written reasons in every case where a passenger is offloaded from an international flight, holding that such action, though preventive, must comply with constitutional safeguards of due process.
Justice Raheel Kamran announced the judgment while deciding two identical petitions filed by Muhammad Soban and Ali Raza against the federal government.
The petitioners were offloaded on Dec 24, 2025, from the Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore, while attempting to travel to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on valid visit visas. They contended that they possessed valid passports, return tickets, confirmed hotel bookings, and that no criminal case, blacklist order or placement on the Exit Control List (ECL) existed against them.
Through their counsel, they argued that the offloading was arbitrary, unlawful and violative of their fundamental rights protected under various articles of the Constitution.
On behalf of the federal government, an additional attorney general maintained that the petitioners were neither blacklisted nor permanently barred from travelling. However, he said, immigration authorities claimed that the passengers failed to satisfactorily explain the purpose of their visit. He said the passengers had insufficient funds and doubtful hotel bookings.
The law officer argued that the action was taken under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and Standing Order No.31/2005, which empower immigration officials to scrutinise travel documents and prevent unlawful emigration. He further contended that the petitioners’ own pleadings referred to travelling “to earn bread and butter,” suggesting possible intent to seek employment abroad under the guise of visit visas.
In his judgement, Justice Kamran held that while the state possesses statutory authority under the Emigration Ordinance to regulate and prevent unlawful emigration, such authority is not unfettered.
He observed that the right to travel abroad is a valuable civil right protected under Article 15 of the Constitution.
The judge said administrative discretion must meet standards of reasonableness, transparency and proportionality.
“Even preventive measures must comply with due process requirements under Article 10-A of the Constitution,” he ruled.
Justice Kamran noted that although immigration officers may legitimately examine financial capacity, documentation, and travel purpose, no written order stating reasons for offloading was furnished to the petitioners at the time of restraint.
The absence of recorded and communicated reasons, the judge held, undermines transparency, prevents meaningful legal challenge and opens the door to arbitrariness.
While upholding the authority of immigration officials to regulate emigration, the judge issued a prospective direction, requiring the officer concerned to record brief but specific reasons in writing and provide a copy to the offloaded passenger at the earliest opportunity.
The judge observed that the petitioners may travel in the future on valid visit visas, subject to lawful scrutiny and compliance with documentary and financial requirements.
The additional attorney general assured the court that the ministry of interior would consider establishing a structured administrative review mechanism for offloading decisions to reduce unnecessary constitutional litigation.
Published in Dawn, February 28th, 2026
