• Court says lack of record erodes transparency and invites arbitrariness
• Govt signals possible review mechanism for offloading decisions
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has directed immigration authorities to record and provide written reasons whenever a passenger is offloaded from an international flight, declaring that such preventive action must adhere to constitutional guarantees of due process.
Justice Raheel Kamran issued the ruling while disposing of two similar petitions filed by Muhammad Soban and Ali Raza against the federal government.
The petitioners were stopped from boarding a flight to Kuala Lumpur at Allama Iqbal International Airport on Dec 24, 2025, despite holding valid visit visas. They maintained that they had valid passports, return tickets, confirmed hotel reservations and no criminal record, blacklist status, or placement on the Exit Control List (ECL).
Through their counsel, they argued that the offloading was arbitrary, unlawful and a violation of their fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Representing the federal government, the additional attorney general stated that the petitioners were neither blacklisted nor permanently barred from travel. However, immigration officials questioned the clarity of their travel purpose, citing inadequate financial resources and doubtful hotel bookings. The law officer said the action was taken under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, and Standing Order No.31/2005, which empower authorities to scrutinise travel documents and prevent unlawful emigration. He also pointed to the petitioners’ own reference to travelling “to earn bread and butter,” suggesting a possible intent to seek employment on visit visas.
In his judgment, Justice Kamran acknowledged the state’s authority under the Emigration Ordinance to regulate emigration but stressed that such powers are not absolute. He underscored that the right to travel abroad is protected under Article 15 of the Constitution and that 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,” the court held.
The judge observed that while immigration officials may assess financial capacity, documentation and travel purpose, the petitioners were not provided with any written order explaining the reasons for their offloading.
He ruled that the failure to record and communicate reasons compromises transparency, hinders meaningful legal recourse and leaves room for arbitrary action.
While affirming the powers of immigration authorities to regulate emigration, the court issued a prospective directive requiring officers to record concise but specific written reasons in every offloading case and supply a copy to the affected passenger at the earliest opportunity.
The court further clarified that the petitioners remain free to travel in the future on valid visit visas, subject to lawful scrutiny and fulfilment of documentary and financial requirements.
The additional attorney general informed the court that the interior ministry is considering the introduction of a structured administrative review mechanism for offloading decisions to curb unnecessary constitutional litigation.