Legal Advice on Blocking of CNIC in Pakistan

Update: A lot of queries have come up, asking about the power of court to block CNIC in a civil matter.This power comes from an amended first schedule of the Civil Procedure Code 1908.According to the amended Order 21 Rule 117 CPC which states , “the modes of compelling the judgement debtor for his attendance or for completing the execution proceedings may include blockage of his Computerized National Identity Card’.

A lot of successful and unsuccessful litigation has ensued, and in the majority of cases CNICs were unblocked via constitutional petitions to high court as we will see later below.The most recent court affirms the position that such blocking in Civil proceedings is an infringement of constitutional rights.This is demonstrated by P L D 2022 Lahore 756 as discussed below:

Case Note on P L D 2022 Lahore 756

Relevant Provisions:

• National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000): Section 18
• Constitution of Pakistan: Articles 199 & 175
• Other relevant laws and concepts: Right to identity, Security of person, Inviolability of dignity of man, Fundamental rights

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Executing Court, which directed the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to block his Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC). The order was issued during the execution of a decree for recovery of dower against the petitioner in a family court case.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the Executing Court had the jurisdiction to order the blocking of the petitioner’s CNIC.
2. The applicability of Section 18 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 in the context of blocking/digital impounding of CNIC.
3. The impact of such an order on the fundamental rights of a person.

Court’s Analysis:

1. Right to Identity: The Court recognized the right to identity as integral to the right to life and human dignity, as protected under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution. The Court referenced international law and treaties that protect the right to identity.
2. Role and Significance of CNIC: The CNIC was deemed essential for the enjoyment of numerous fundamental rights. The inability to have a CNIC impacts a person’s daily life significantly, affecting various civic and social functions.
3. Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance: The Court scrutinized Section 18, which outlines the Federal Government’s power to cancel, impound, or confiscate CNICs. It was determined that such actions require specific circumstances, as enumerated in the Ordinance, and must be preceded by a show cause notice.
4. Jurisdiction of the Executing Court: The Court found that the Executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction and acted contrary to the principles of law by ordering the blocking of the CNIC without adhering to the stipulations of Section 18.

The Court held that the order to block the petitioner’s CNIC was without legal authority, as it was not in compliance with the procedures and requirements set out in Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance. The action was also deemed a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights.

The petition was accepted, and the impugned order dated 04.06.2021 was declared to be without legal authority and set aside. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures and requirements when dealing with matters that significantly impact fundamental rights. It underscores the critical role of CNIC in a person’s life and the legal limitations on the authorities’ power to restrict or impound it. The decision reinforces the principle that actions impacting fundamental rights must be grounded in law and due process.

However the position in criminal proceedings where the person is an absconder favours the idea of courts blocking the CNIC of the accused as per the case below:

Main Article continues below

In the legal landscape of Pakistan, the blocking of Computerised National Identity Cards (CNICs) has been a subject of considerable debate and judicial scrutiny. Various cases have been brought before the courts, each adding a layer of complexity to the existing jurisprudence on the matter. The legal principles emerging from the cited cases can be analysed under several key themes.

Right to Due Process

One of the recurring principles is the right to due process. The National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (NADRA Ordinance) stipulates the conditions under which a CNIC may be cancelled, impounded, or confiscated. The courts have consistently held that any action taken without adhering to these conditions would be void. For example, in PLJ 2022 Lahore 803, the court explicitly stated that a CNIC is essential for the enjoyment of numerous fundamental rights and a person cannot be deprived of it without due process of law.

Limited Scope of Authority

The courts have also clarified the limited scope of NADRA’s authority in blocking CNICs. In 2021 PLD 492, the Karachi High Court elaborated that NADRA does not possess the power to block a CNIC unless it has been finally determined that the card should be cancelled, impounded, or confiscated. This underscores the principle that the authority’s actions must strictly adhere to the legislative framework.

Impact on Fundamental Rights

Several cases have emphasised the impact of blocking a CNIC on an individual’s fundamental rights. For example, blocking a CNIC can cripple an individual’s ability to engage in financial transactions, obtain a passport, and even affect daily routines. This was highlighted in 2022 PLD 756, where the court noted that the trial court could issue directions to NADRA for digitally impounding or blocking the CNIC, thereby effectively strangulating the individual’s financial resources.

Jurisdictional Issues

The issue of jurisdiction has also been prominently featured. The courts have clarified that orders for blocking CNICs cannot be passed without considering the relevant sections of the NADRA Ordinance. For instance, in 2017 PLD 585, the Karachi High Court laid down the procedure that NADRA must follow before impounding a person’s CNIC, thereby indicating that such powers must be exercised judiciously and within the bounds of the law.

Procedural Safeguards

Lastly, procedural safeguards have been stressed in multiple judgments. For example, in 2018 MLD 1748, the High Court directed the authorities to de-block the CNICs and passports of the petitioner and his family members, emphasising the necessity of a thorough investigation or inquiry before taking such drastic measures.

In conclusion, the cited cases collectively assert the necessity for safeguarding individual rights and adhering to legal procedures when considering the blocking of CNICs. The courts have been cautious in ensuring that the law is not misused to impinge on the fundamental rights of citizens, and have outlined clear limitations on the powers of administrative authorities like NADRA.

Where the CNIC of an Absconder is involved :

HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI Criminal Misc. Application No. 232 of 2020 Shaikh Muhammad Akbar Through attorney Ali Haider Jatoi… Versus The State and another

Date of hearing & Order : 20.07.2020.

Blocking of CNIC’s Under Section 18 of the NADRA ORDINANCE 2000

In the legal landscape of Pakistan, the blocking of Computerised National Identity Cards (CNICs) has been a subject of considerable debate and judicial scrutiny. Various cases have been brought before the courts, each adding a layer of complexity to the existing jurisprudence on the matter. The legal principles emerging from the cited cases can be analysed under several key themes.

Right to Due Process

One of the recurring principles is the right to due process. The National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (NADRA Ordinance) stipulates the conditions under which a CNIC may be cancelled, impounded, or confiscated. The courts have consistently held that any action taken without adhering to these conditions would be void. For example, in PLJ 2022 Lahore 803, the court explicitly stated that a CNIC is essential for the enjoyment of numerous fundamental rights and a person cannot be deprived of it without due process of law.

Limited Scope of Authority

The courts have also clarified the limited scope of NADRA’s authority in blocking CNICs. In 2021 PLD 492, the Karachi High Court elaborated that NADRA does not possess the power to block a CNIC unless it has been finally determined that the card should be cancelled, impounded, or confiscated. This underscores the principle that the authority’s actions must strictly adhere to the legislative framework.

Impact on Fundamental Rights

Several cases have emphasised the impact of blocking a CNIC on an individual’s fundamental rights. For example, blocking a CNIC can cripple an individual’s ability to engage in financial transactions, obtain a passport, and even affect daily routines. This was highlighted in 2022 PLD 756, where the court noted that the trial court could issue directions to NADRA for digitally impounding or blocking the CNIC, thereby effectively strangulating the individual’s financial resources.

Jurisdictional Issues

The issue of jurisdiction has also been prominently featured. The courts have clarified that orders for blocking CNICs cannot be passed without considering the relevant sections of the NADRA Ordinance. For instance, in 2017 PLD 585, the Karachi High Court laid down the procedure that NADRA must follow before impounding a person’s CNIC, thereby indicating that such powers must be exercised judiciously and within the bounds of the law.

Procedural Safeguards

Lastly, procedural safeguards have been stressed in multiple judgments. For example, in 2018 MLD 1748, the High Court directed the authorities to de-block the CNICs and passports of the petitioner and his family members, emphasising the necessity of a thorough investigation or inquiry before taking such drastic measures.

Case law review

In 2022 PLD 756 Lahore High Court case involving Hafiz Awais Zafar, the court clarified that Section 18 of the Ordinance allows the Federal Government to cancel, impound, or confiscate CNICs, but only after giving a show cause notice to the cardholder. The court emphasized that these provisions must be “strictly construed and scrupulously followed” as they have a direct impact on a citizen’s fundamental rights. The court also made it clear that the Section does not allow for the blocking or digital impounding of a CNIC to compel a person to appear before a court. Such actions were deemed contrary to Article 175(2) of the Constitution and the concept of the rule of law.

The court further elaborated on the essential nature of the CNIC, stating that it is vital for the enjoyment of a multitude of fundamental rights, thus reiterating that a person cannot be deprived of it without due process.

Another interesting aspect arises from the case citation 2021 PLD 492 from the Karachi High Court. It highlighted that Section 18 should not be invoked in every case to question the authenticity of a CNIC. The court emphasized that the blocking of a CNIC could only occur if it was determined or adjudicated that the card should be cancelled, impounded, or confiscated. It also criticized NADRA’s approach in issuing show-cause notices without clear reasons, stating that such actions were arbitrary.

In the 2017 PLD 585 Karachi High Court case, the court stated explicitly that NADRA had no authority to block a CNIC under Section 23 of the Ordinance and could only physically or digitally “impound” a CNIC under the guidelines set forth in Section 18 after providing notice and an opportunity for hearing to the cardholder.

In summary, the courts have consistently held that NADRA’s powers under Section 18 are not unfettered. Any actions taken to cancel, impound, or confiscate a CNIC must be in strict accordance with the law and due process, given the significant impact such actions have on a citizen’s fundamental rights. The blocking or digital impounding of a CNIC, in particular, has been deemed to not have the sanction of law and is thus not permissible under Section 18.

 It’s essential to note that the courts have also looked at NADRA’s role in determining paternity and citizenship status. For instance, in the 2021 PLD 105 Islamabad case, the court held that NADRA lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate on family disputes, including questions of disputed paternity. This restriction underlines the court’s view that NADRA’s powers should be narrowly construed and limited to the specific mandates outlined in the legislation.

Moreover, in the case of Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor (2021 PLD 305), the court stressed that arbitrary actions by NADRA in blocking or cancelling CNICs could have “profound and grave consequences,” virtually halting a person’s life and denying the exercise of fundamental rights. In this particular case, the court clearly stated that such arbitrary actions were in excess of NADRA’s jurisdiction under the Ordinance.

The Karachi High Court in 2018 MLD 1748 emphasized the importance of due process. In this case, the CNICs of the petitioner and his family were blocked merely on the basis of suspicion. The court directed the authorities to de-block the CNICs, underscoring the need for proper investigation or inquiry before taking such drastic measures.

Additionally, the courts have been critical of NADRA’s use of arbitrary cut-off dates and vague notices. In the 2021 PLD 492 Karachi High Court case, the court criticised NADRA for asking the petitioner to submit documents prior to 1978 without providing any rationale for this specific date.

In conclusion, these cases collectively indicate that while NADRA holds significant power under Section 18 of the Ordinance, this power is constrained by constitutional principles, the rule of law, and the need for due process. Any deviation from these guiding principles, as observed in the cited cases, leads to legal challenges that have often resulted in the courts ruling against NADRA’s actions.

The consistent thread running through these judgements is the emphasis on the rule of law and respect for individual rights. Courts are particularly wary of actions that infringe upon fundamental freedoms without clear legal justification. As such, NADRA must tread carefully, adhering strictly to the legal frameworks that govern its operations, particularly when dealing with matters as sensitive as personal identification and citizenship.

There are also some more cases which shed light on the complex landscape of NADRA’s powers and limitations under Sections 17, 18, and 23 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000.

In the 2016 PLD 1 Quetta-High-Court-Balochistan case, the court clarified that NADRA does possess the authority to investigate and inquire when there is doubt about a CNIC. This case established that NADRA could demand specific documents for verification. However, before taking any adverse actions like cancellation or impounding, NADRA must issue a notice under Section 17, and the aggrieved individual has the right to appeal to the Federal Government under Section 18(3). The court dismissed the constitutional petition as premature, highlighting the importance of exhausting all available remedies before resorting to the court.

The 2016 CLC 1928 Peshawar-High-Court case echoes the right to appeal under Section 18(3). The court converted the constitutional petition into an appeal and sent it to the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, for resolution. This case also emphasizes the necessity of considering the broader context, like the legal status of other family members, when deciding these matters.

The 2011 PLD 47 Peshawar-High-Court cases stress the requirement of due process. NADRA cannot cancel or impound a CNIC without giving the holder an opportunity to be heard. This underlines the importance of procedural fairness in the exercise of NADRA’s powers.

The 2005 CLC 1215 Lahore-High-Court-Lahore case seems to focus on the period of validity of a National Identity Card, although the details are not fully elaborated. Nevertheless, it suggests that the courts scrutinise even the technical aspects of NADRA’s operations.

Finally, the 2003 YLR 2335 Karachi-High-Court-Sindh case addresses the jurisdictional aspects, stating that complaints for offences related to NADRA should be filed by the Authority itself or a gazetted officer authorised by it. It adds another layer of complexity, specifying who has the authority to initiate legal proceedings for offences related to identity cards.

In summary, the cases collectively affirm that while NADRA has significant powers, these are not unbridled. They are circumscribed by procedural requirements, the need for due process, and the availability of appeals to higher authorities. The courts are vigilant in ensuring that NADRA’s actions comply with the legal frameworks, particularly when they have the potential to impact fundamental rights and liberties. 

Legal Note on Financial Monitoring Unit (FMU) Guidelines for Reporting STRs on CNIC/Passport Cancellation or Blockage

Reference:

• Document: Guidelines for Reporting Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs)
• Issued By: Financial Monitoring Unit (FMU), Government of Pakistan
• Date: April 08, 2020
• Ref No.: FMU/G&F/001//2020

Recipients:

1. Presidents/CEOs of All Banks
2. Managing Director, SBP BSC, Karachi
3. Director General, Central Directorate of National Savings, Islamabad
4. Director General, Pakistan Post Office, Islamabad

Subject:

Guidelines on Reporting STRs related to Cancellation/Blockage of CNICs/Passports & Registrations/Licenses by Authorities.

Context and Background:

• National Database Regulatory Authority (NADRA), Director General, Immigration & Passport (IMPASS), and other relevant authorities often cancel/block Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC)/ Passport or other national IDs.
• Federal and Provincial authorities also revoke registrations/licenses like Arms License, NGO/NPO Trust registration, company delistings, etc.
• These actions prompt reporting entities and stakeholders to escalate Suspicious Transaction Reports (STR) to the FMU.

Key Guidelines for STR Reporting:

1. Analysis Before Reporting: STRs must be thoroughly analyzed for elements of Money Laundering (ML), Terrorist Financing (TF), and related predicate offences before reporting to FMU.
2. Not Solely Based on Single Indicator: Reporting should not be based solely on one indicator (e.g., CNIC cancellation/blocking). A multifactorial approach should be adopted.

Developed Red Flag Indicators:

1. Involvement in Crimes: CNIC/Passport cancellations due to alleged involvement in crimes, including transnational and organized crimes.
2. Multiple CNICs/Passports: Possession of multiple CNICs/passports with varying information for illicit purposes.
3. Revocation of Registrations/Licenses: By Federal/Provincial authorities.
4. Source Analysis: Reasons for cancellation/revocation should be analyzed from the source (e.g., NADRA Verisys).
5. Financial Transactions: Involvement in large/complex/unusual financial transactions or activities.
6. UNSCR/OFAC Listings: Listing of suspect on United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) 1267, 1373, OFAC, FIA/Police databases.
7. Associations: Close association with proscribed entities/individuals.
8. Politically Exposed Persons (PEP): If the suspect is a PEP, their family members, close associates, or employees.
9. Adverse Media Reports: Negative media or database information on the suspect.

Compliance:

• All reporting entities and stakeholders are advised to comply with these guidelines.

Purpose and Significance:

• These guidelines aim to enhance the effectiveness of STR reporting in combatting money laundering and terrorist financing.
• The focus is on ensuring comprehensive analysis and responsible reporting, rather than solely relying on specific actions like CNIC/Passport cancellation.

Note:

• Compliance with these guidelines is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the financial system and aiding in the prevention of financial crimes.

You may also like 

Legal Advice on Operations and Maintenance Agreements in the Power Sector

Legal Advice on Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Pakistan: A Guide for Private Clients and Foreign Companies (Section 13 & 44-A CPC)