Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD UMAR versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

ections Sections 18 and 23 - Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 - Authority to "Block" Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) under Section 23 of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance 2000 - Ordinance \\\) Legality - Section of Ordinance CNIC Procedure for ound promotion of CNIC according to terms of 18 No explicit clause in the ordinance is permitted by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) of CN Block \\\ CNIC Section 23 of the Ordinance NADRA did not have the authority to block any CNIC after issuing the notice to the cardholder under it, however, NADRA had no right to physically or digitally distribute any CIC under Section 18. Yin ICC has the power to inspire. Ordinance, after meeting the requirement of a notice and giving the card holder an opportunity to be heard - the High Court directed that the process of NADRA be ensured before blocking a person's CNIC. Be a computerized national block of a person. The Identity Card (CNIC) was formerly a tram act as it aims to deprive a citizen of his or her identity and discharge his or her usual work a. Blocking a CNIC is disregarding the identity of a person, It has to be deprived of all necessities, and even its movements are banned. If identity is withheld on the basis of a suspicion without giving a person an opportunity to identify, his or her basic rights are serious. Is a violation, [P589 JA

PLD 2017 Sindh 585

Before Nadeem Akhtar and Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, JJ

MUHAMMAD UMAR—Petitioner

versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others—Respondents

C.P. No.D-361 of 2017, decided on 22nd February, 2017.

(a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000)—

—Ss. 18 & 23—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Power to 'block' computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) under S. 23 of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 ("the Ordinance")—Legality—"Impounding" of CNIC in terms of S. 18 of the Ordinance—Procedure—No clear provision in the Ordinance authorized the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to 'block' a CNIC—NADRA had no authority to block a CNIC after issuing a notice to the cardholder under S.23 of the Ordinance, however, instead of blocking, NADRA had the power to physically or digitally "impound" a CNIC in terms of S.18 of the Ordinance, after fulfilling requirement of a notice and granting opportunity of hearing to the cardholder—High Court gave directions laying down the procedure that had to be followed by NADRA before impounding person's CNIC. Blocking a person's Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) was an extreme act as it amounted to depriving a citizen from his/her identity and depriving him to discharging his routine work. 'Blocking a CNIC' is negating the very identity of a person, which amounted to depriving him of all the necessities, and even imposed restrictions to his freedom of movement. If a person’s identity was blocked on the ground of suspicion without giving him an opportunity of hearing, it amounted to a serious violation of his fundamental rights, [p. 589J A

Term ’blocking' was alien to the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 ("the Ordinance"). No clear provision in the Ordinance authorized the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to 'block' a CNIC. [p. 590] B

Perusal of section 23 of the Ordinance clearly showed that NADRA had no authority to place an embargo whatsoever on a CNIC under the said section. Any person's CNIC could not be blocked after issuing him/her a notice under section 23 of the Ordinance. No doubt, by issuing a notice under section 23, NADRA may call any person who had given any infÓrm;ation to furnish any proof regarding the infÓrm;ation so given. Language of the statute indicated that said section was applicable prior to issuance of CNIC and not afterwards. Instead of blocking, NADRA may take action as per provision of section 18 of the Ordinance to physically or digitally impound a CNIC after giving notice and chance of hearing to the cardholder, [p. 591] D & E

High Court directed that impounding of CNIC in terms of section 18 of the Ordinance must be done after fulfilling the requirement of notice to concerned person with full opportunity of a audience; that NADRA must ensure the service of notices to the concerned person through SMS, special messengers, post and/or courier services, and after confirmation of service of all or any of the said mode, and expiry of at least 15 days' time if no response was received then impounding proceeding may be initiated; that if service of notice could not be done or confirmed then NADRA was bound to publish such notice on their website as well as publish the same in a newspaper and after expiry of the 15 days period impounding proceeding should be initiated; that if a person appeared before NADRA authorities, after service of notice or publication then NADRA should complete an inquiry within a period of 30 days after giving full opportunity of the audience to him; that if a person appeared after 'impounding' of his CNIC and gave reasons for his non-appearance, then NADRA must give him an opportunity of hearing, and during such hearing his CNIC may be restored, and that the final order passed under section 18 of the Ordinance, must contain, reasons for impounding, cancelling or confiscating the CNIC issued to the card-holder, [p. 591] F

(b) Words and phrases—

— "Impound"—Definition. [p. 590] C

Black's Law Dictionary, Second Edn. ref.

Shahab Sarki for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Farooq and Ms. Samina Iqbal for NADRA. Muhammad Aslam Butt, DAG.

Date of hearing: 2nd February, 2017.

property advocates from Washuk lawyer