This commentary is not a substitute for proper legal advice.If you have queries related to the law on Pakistani Citizenship email us at [email protected]
Citizenship and the rights associated with it are paramount in any nation. In Pakistan, the evolving legal narrative around dual nationality and the rights of its citizens, both at home and abroad, reflect the nation’s struggle to balance constitutional provisions, legal interpretations, and the realities of a globalised world. The courts, through their judgements, continue to play a pivotal role in shaping this narrative, ensuring that the rights of the citizens are upheld and protected.
The intricate interplay between domicile, permanent residence, and citizenship underscores the depth and complexity of these concepts within the legal framework of Pakistan. While the laws provide a structure, it’s the interpretations and judgements, such as those referenced from PLJ, that bring clarity and direction. These interpretations not only elucidate the legal constructs but also serve as a beacon, guiding future decisions and ensuring that the rights of individuals remain at the forefront.
Introduction to the Intricacies of Pakistani Citizenship Laws: A Deep Dive into Landmark Cases
Pakistani citizenship, while seemingly straightforward, is a complex tapestry woven with various legal intricacies. The laws governing citizenship in Pakistan have evolved over the years, shaped by socio-political changes, international relations, and legal precedents set by landmark court cases. It’s not just about where you were born or who your parents are; it’s also about legal definitions, political implications, and individual rights. Through the lens of pivotal cases, we aim to unravel the nuances of these laws, shedding light on the rights of citizens, the distinctions between domicile and permanent residence, and the implications of dual nationality.
Key takeaways from our exploration include the profound understanding that domicile and permanent residence, while often used interchangeably, hold distinct legal meanings in the context of Pakistani law. We’ll delve into the implications of acquiring a domicile certificate and the circumstances under which it can be revoked, as illuminated by the case of an individual who switched educational institutions. Additionally, we’ll explore the contentious issue of dual nationality, a topic that has sparked considerable debate and legal challenges. A deep dive into the Pakistan Citizenship Act of 1951 provides clarity on who is considered a citizen at the commencement of the act and the conditions under which citizenship can be obtained or revoked.
By examining these cases and the legal provisions that they hinge upon, this commentary aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of Pakistani citizenship laws, their evolution, and their impact on individuals and the broader society.
Useful links on citizenship & domicile
https://joshandmakinternational.com/pakistani-citizenship-through-naturalization/
https://joshandmakinternational.com/case-commentary-citizenship-registration-laws-pakistan/
https://joshandmakinternational.com/pakistani-citizenship-a-short-guide/
Understanding the Legal Principles of Pakistani Citizenship From Case Law
The legal principles governing Pakistani citizenship have their foundation in the Pakistan Citizenship Act of 1951 and the Pakistan Citizenship Rules of 1952. A deeper understanding can be garnered from the recent judgments that shed light on the nuances of these provisions.
In the case of DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), CHARSADDA vs. SONIA BEGUM (2023 PLC(CS) 392 SUPREME-COURT), the court took a deep dive into the differentiation between ‘domicile’ and ‘residence’. The judgment clarified the principles surrounding the acquisition of domicile and made it evident that there’s a clear distinction between ‘domicile’ and ‘residence’ (2023 PLC(CS) 392 SUPREME-COURT).
Additionally, the case underlined the significance of domicile certificates, especially for domicile-specific posts in civil service. The court’s perspective was that a domicile certificate should take precedence over the address displayed on the Computerised National Identity Card (CNIC). The rationale being that the domicile serves as a crucial document to verify an individual’s permanent residence. Making recruitment decisions based solely on the CNIC, without taking the domicile into account, can lead to potential complications. This is especially true in scenarios where an individual’s residence changes temporarily or if they move to a rented property (2023 PLC(CS) 392 SUPREME-COURT).
Shifting focus to the case of ADNAN KHAN vs. GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA (2022 PLC(CS) 550 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), the core issue revolved around determining a candidate’s domicile for the position of Primary School Teacher. The court made it clear that positions for Primary School Teachers are district-centric. Hence, these roles must be occupied by candidates hailing from the Union Councils where the vacancies are located. Only in the absence of suitable candidates from a Union Council can appointments be made from a neighbouring Union Council (2022 PLC(CS) 550 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT).
In the case involving Mst. SAMINA NAZ vs. PAKISTAN (2021 PLD 187 ISLAMABAD), the complexities faced by Pakistani women who forgo their Pakistani citizenship post marriage to foreign nationals was the focus. The court highlighted sections of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. While Section 14(1) implies that an individual with dual citizenship would renounce their Pakistani status, Section 14(4) offers an exception for Pakistani women married to non-Pakistani citizens. However, given that the petitioner had already relinquished her Pakistani citizenship and had been granted Indian nationality, the conditions stipulated by the Ministry of Interior for regaining Pakistani citizenship were deemed justifiable (2021 PLD 187 ISLAMABAD).
Firstly, the distinction between ‘domicile’ and ‘residence’ is not merely semantic. The ramifications of this distinction have profound implications, especially when it comes to recruitment for domicile-specific posts. The case of DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), CHARSADDA vs. SONIA BEGUM (2023 PLC(CS) 392 SUPREME-COURT) makes it abundantly clear that while a CNIC can indicate one’s current place of residence, it’s the domicile that truly reflects an individual’s permanent abode. This distinction becomes even more crucial when individuals change their place of residence frequently, as relying solely on the CNIC could lead to undue complications in the recruitment process.
Secondly, the importance of domicile in the recruitment process, particularly for district-centric posts, cannot be overstated. As elucidated in the case of ADNAN KHAN vs. GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA (2022 PLC(CS) 550 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), ensuring that candidates are genuinely from the district where the vacancy exists is crucial to maintain the integrity of the recruitment process. This not only ensures fairness but also aids in fostering a sense of belonging and community within the district.
Lastly, the challenges faced by Pakistani women who renounce their citizenship post-marriage to foreign nationals are multifaceted. While the law does provide certain provisions to protect the rights of these women, as seen in the case of Mst. SAMINA NAZ vs. PAKISTAN (2021 PLD 187 ISLAMABAD), it’s crucial to navigate these provisions with a clear understanding. Renouncing Pakistani citizenship and acquiring foreign nationality can lead to a myriad of legal complexities. Thus, it’s imperative for women in such situations to be well-informed and take informed decisions, ensuring they are not inadvertently relinquishing their rights.
In Hafiz HAMDULLAH SABOOR vs. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN (2021 PLD 305 ISLAMABAD), the court delved into the exclusive nature of citizenship by birth as articulated under Section 4 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. The court emphasized that birth within Pakistan is the sole determinant for granting citizenship, barring the two exceptions mentioned within the said section. The judgement further clarified that the status of citizenship by birth is not at the discretion of the state, unlike other categories such as citizenship by migration or naturalization. Additionally, Rule 8 of the Pakistan Citizens Rules, 1952 becomes relevant only when a person claims to be a citizen by birth and seeks a certificate acknowledging the same from the competent authority.
The case of Mst. SAMINA NAZ vs. PAKISTAN (2021 PLD 187 ISLAMABAD) examined the matter of citizenship by descent. At the heart of the dispute was the petitioner’s renunciation of her Pakistani citizenship post-marriage to an Indian national and her subsequent desire for her children to be granted Pakistani citizenship. The court noted that while the petitioner had renounced her citizenship, her sons, born before this renunciation, would be considered Pakistani citizens by descent. However, her daughter, born post-renunciation, was deemed an Indian citizen. The court further highlighted the challenges and legal complexities surrounding dual citizenship, particularly when individuals renounce their original citizenship and later desire to regain it.
Furthermore, the same case of Mst. SAMINA NAZ vs. PAKISTAN (2021 PLD 187 ISLAMABAD) also shed light on the concept of Commonwealth citizenship. The petitioner, having acquired Indian citizenship post-renunciation of her Pakistani citizenship, and her children, were considered Commonwealth citizens. The court elaborated on the provisions under Rule 20 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, which allows Commonwealth citizens to apply for Pakistani citizenship. However, certain conditions must be met, and in the petitioner’s case, these were not satisfied, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The emphasis on domicile and its significance in the employment process was highlighted in the case of Mst. MAMUNA AMIN vs. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB (2018 PLC(CS)N 41 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE). The court emphasized the importance of using the correct domicile for employment purposes. If an individual obtains a new domicile, the previous one is considered relinquished. Using the previous domicile, post obtaining a new one from a different place, is unauthorized and can lead to complications in the employment process.
Additionally, in MUBASHAR MEHMOOD vs. HOME AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS (2018 PLD 49 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN), the court drew a clear line between the concepts of domicile and permanent residence. While domicile relates to the status of a person and involves legal considerations, permanent residence is factual in nature. The certificates for domicile and permanent residence serve different purposes and should not be conflated.
Another key aspect illuminated by the cases is the challenge surrounding dual citizenship. While the concept of Commonwealth citizenship offers certain pathways, it’s crucial to approach this with a thorough understanding of the conditions and stipulations attached. The process of renouncing and subsequently attempting to regain Pakistani citizenship can be fraught with legal complexities, as evidenced by the case of Mst. SAMINA NAZ vs. PAKISTAN (2021 PLD 187 ISLAMABAD). Individuals in similar situations must be well-informed and ensure they navigate the process with meticulous attention to the provisions of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952.
Furthermore, the implications of using an incorrect or outdated domicile for employment or any other official purposes can lead to legal complications. As seen in the case of Mst. MAMUNA AMIN vs. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB (2018 PLC(CS)N 41 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE), the courts have taken a stringent stance on such matters, emphasizing the importance of ensuring one’s documents are up-to-date and accurately reflect their current status.
It’s also worth noting that while citizenship by birth is seemingly straightforward, the exceptions provided in Section 4 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 can introduce nuances that require careful consideration. The case of Hafiz HAMDULLAH SABOOR vs. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN (2021 PLD 305 ISLAMABAD) provides valuable insights into this matter, highlighting the importance of birth within Pakistan as the primary determinant for citizenship.
The idea of domicile is intrinsic to legal proceedings, especially when considering matters of citizenship or residency within a particular jurisdiction. To begin with, the case Mst. KHADIJA SHAHEEN ALI vs. DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, RAJAN PUR (2015 CLC 859 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE) showcases the complexities of differentiating between “domicile” and “residence.” While a person might have several places of residence, they can only have one domicile, which is identified as the location they always intend to return to. The mere ownership of a piece of land does not automatically confer the right to a domicile certificate of a district, nor does it establish permanent residence there. The petitioner’s intentions and actual residence play a crucial role in determining the rightful issuance of a domicile certificate.
Similarly, in the case AZIZ-UR-REHMAN vs. ALIA MUNIR (2010 YLR 269 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE), the court deliberated on the implications of dual nationality and the conditions under which one can retain Pakistani citizenship while also holding citizenship of another nation. The case accentuates the importance of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and the relevant rules, which provide pathways for individuals to navigate the intricacies of dual citizenship.
The case MEHMOOD UL HASSAN KHAN vs. DOW UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES (2008 PLD 49 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH) sheds light on the nuanced difference between the concepts of “domicile” and “permanent residence.” While “domicile” indicates a person’s legal relationship with a specific locality or country, “permanent residence” is a straightforward factual assertion of where an individual resides. This distinction is paramount when considering legal rights and privileges associated with each status.
Furthermore, the case ZAHIR SHAH vs. AGENCY EDUCATION OFFICER, MOHMAND AGENCY GHALLANAI (2007 PLC(CS) 856 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT) delves deeper into the layers of domicile. Domicile, as the case defines, could represent two primary categories: the domicile of a country (which is equated with citizenship) and that of a specific area, district, or tribal agency. This understanding becomes even more pertinent when considering the rights and responsibilities of tribal residents, especially in the context of the N.-W.F.P province.
In the subsequent case with the same parties ZAHIR SHAH vs. AGENCY EDUCATION OFFICER, MOHMAND AGENCY GHALLANAI (2007 PLD 147 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), the concepts of domicile and citizenship are reiterated, emphasizing their mutual overlapping effects. It underscores that citizenship confers rights and liabilities towards the state, whereas domicile or permanent residence pertains to civil rights and privileges.
For instance, in the case Mst. MAMUNA AMIN vs. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB (2018 PLC(CS)N 41 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE), the petitioner used her previous domicile to seek employment. The court, emphasizing the distinction between a domicile and residence, ruled that once an individual obtains a new domicile from a different place, their previous domicile is considered relinquished. This case underscores the importance of the legal sanctity of domicile certificates and the necessity to prevent their misuse.
Moreover, the case MUBASHAR MEHMOOD vs. HOME AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS (2018 PLD 49 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN) reiterates the distinction between the concepts of domicile and permanent or ordinary residence. It is emphasized that while domicile relates to an individual’s status and involves a legal determination, the concept of residence is purely factual. This distinction is pivotal, especially when considering the issuance of domicile or permanent residence certificates.
The case MEHMOOD UL HASSAN KHAN vs. DOW UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES (2008 PLD 49 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH) again touches upon the difference between “domicile” and “permanent residence.” The court explains that while “domicile” signifies a person’s legal relationship with a particular locality or country, “permanent residence” is a clear factual assertion of an individual’s residence. Such distinctions are crucial when considering the rights and privileges associated with each status, especially in legal contexts like citizenship applications or university admissions.
In ZAHIR SHAH vs. AGENCY EDUCATION OFFICER, MOHMAND AGENCY GHALLANAI (2007 PLC(CS) 856 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), the court delved into the specifics of the domicile, especially in the context of the N.-W.F.P province. The case highlighted the rights and responsibilities of tribal residents, emphasizing that every person has the right to a domicile certificate if they have a permanent abode in the area or are born to parents permanently domiciled in that place.
2002 PLD 521 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: The case of UMAR AHMAD GHUMMAN vs. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN touches upon the concept of dual nationality, particularly with respect to the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. The case emphasizes that citizenship is the most valuable right an individual can possess in a State. The ruling highlights the arbitrariness and discriminatory nature of Section 14(3) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, which allows the Federal Government to decide, without any specific guidelines, which countries’ citizens can maintain dual citizenship with Pakistan. The court found this section violative of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The High Court also facilitated the resumption of original citizenship for Pakistani expatriates in the U.S.A.
2001 CLC 2001 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The two identical cases of MUHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN vs. THE STATE revolve around the acquisition of a domicile certificate. The rulings clarify that under Rule 28-A of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, a person who has a domicile certificate from one area can surrender it and obtain a domicile certificate from another area.
2001 PLC(CS) 312 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: SHAHZAD IQBAL’s case against the FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION emphasizes the importance and validity of a domicile certificate. The ruling confirms that a person’s domicile is not governed by their father’s domicile. The petitioner’s domicile certificate, issued by the authority at Rawalpindi, was presumed to be valid unless proven to have been issued wrongfully, which was not the case.
2001 MLD 14 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: Similar to the above case, SHAHZAD IQBAL’s case against the FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION reiterates the validity of a domicile certificate and the authority of the District Magistrate to issue it. The ruling underscores that such certificates, once issued, create a right for the holder.
1997 SCMR 556 SUPREME-COURT: The case of AIEN KHAN AFRIDI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/POLITICAL AGENT highlights the significance of a domicile certificate and the process to issue it. The ruling clarifies that an “Ordinary Domicile Certificate” for educational institution admissions is not equivalent to a “domicile certificate” as per the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. This case underscores the distinction between the two types of certificates.
1993 MLD 821 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: The case of HABIBULLAH vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE revolves around the authority of the District Magistrate to cancel a domicile certificate. The ruling asserts that the District Magistrate, being the competent authority, can cancel a domicile certificate if it was obtained through fraudulent means or misrepresentation.
1992 PLD 1 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: AHMAD HASAN vs. ABDULLAH discusses the conditions for issuing a domicile certificate. The ruling elucidates that the precondition of one year’s residence in Pakistan, as per Section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act and Rule 23 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, is not applicable to individuals born in Pakistan. The condition is meant for migrants to Pakistan post-independence.
1988 PLD 437 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: The case of NOOR FATIMA vs. ALIA MUEED distinguishes between a certificate of domicile and a certificate of permanent residence. The court ruled that a domicile certificate is, in essence, a certificate of permanent residence, and the term “domicile certificate” is a misnomer.
2002 PLD 521 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Parties Involved: UMAR AHMAD GHUMMAN vs. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Key Points: The crux of the case revolves around the provisions of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, specifically Ss. 14(3), 14-A & 16, in relation to dual nationality. The primary concern was the discretionary power vested in the Federal Government under S.14(3), which allows it to decide whether to issue a notification specifying a country with which a dual nationality arrangement is permissible. The High Court ruled that this discretion, without clear guidelines, resulted in arbitrary and discriminatory practices, especially in the context of Pakistani expatriates in the U.S.A. The Court declared S.14(3) to be in violation of the Constitution of Pakistan’s Arts. 4 & 25 and emphasised the importance of providing clear guidelines for any discretionary power to ensure due process and equality before the law.
2001 CLC 2001 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Parties Involved: MUHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN vs. THE STATE (Two similar citations)
Key Points: This case pertains to R.28-A of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952. It establishes that a person who has acquired a domicile certificate from one area can subsequently surrender it and obtain one from another area as per the said rule.
2001 PLC(CS) 312 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Parties Involved: SHAHZAD IQBAL, RESEARCH OFFICER, DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION vs. FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Key Points: The case highlights the distinction between the domicile of a father and that of a child, especially in the context of civil service appointments. The ruling emphasized that the domicile of a child is not necessarily determined by the domicile of the father, particularly when the child has lived and worked in a different district.
1993 MLD 821 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Parties Involved: HABIBULLAH vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, D.G. KHAN
Key Points: This case focuses on R. 30 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952. It establishes the power and competence of the District Magistrate to cancel a domicile certificate if found to have been obtained through fraudulent means or misrepresentation.
1992 PLD 1 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Parties Involved: AHMAD HASAN vs. ABDULLAH
Key Points: This case addressed the issue of domicile in relation to educational institutions. It clarified that the “Ordinary Domicile Certificate” issued for educational purposes is distinct from the “domicile certificate” as envisioned in the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951.
1987 CLC 1106 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Parties Involved: MUHAMMAD AZAM vs. KHALID MUMTAZ Key Points: This case revolves around the cancellation of a student’s admission to an engineering college due to the cancellation of his domicile certificate. The court ruled in favour of the student, stating that the college authorities should have awaited the outcome of the student’s appeal against the cancellation of his domicile certificate before admitting another candidate in his place.
1984 PLD 195 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Parties Involved: SHAMA AHSAN vs. PROVINCE OF SINDH Key Points: The case distinguishes between the fact of being a domicile of a particular place and the date of obtaining a domicile certificate. It establishes that a person might have been a domicile of a certain place for several years before obtaining an official certificate to that effect.
1983 PLD 68 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Parties Involved: ATTA ABBAS vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOHLU
Key Points: This case touches upon R. 26 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952. It asserts that a District Magistrate, once satisfied that a domicile certificate was obtained fraudulently, can initiate proceedings to cancel said certificate.
1979 SCMR 529 SUPREME-COURT-Parties Involved: CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, BOLAN MEDICAL COLLEGE, QUETTA vs. MISS SAFIA HAMEED
Key Points: This case clarifies the issuance of domicile certificates in relation to the admission processes of educational institutions. It emphasizes the authority of District Magistrates in the issuance of such certificates and the legal implications of these documents.
1977 PLD 22 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN- Parties Involved: SHAH BAZ KHAN vs. GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN
Key Points: The case underscores the importance of a thorough enquiry before the cancellation of a domicile certificate. The court ruled that, in the absence of a proper inquiry, the cancellation of a domicile certificate is deemed illegal and void.
1971 PLD 367 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE-Parties Involved: CHAUDHRY NOOR MUHAMMAD vs. PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER
Key Points: This case addresses the interpretation of the term “may” in S. 17 of the Act and R. 23 of the Rules. The court emphasized that, when the requirements and pre-conditions are met, the District Magistrate has an obligation to issue the domicile certificate, and the individual has a right to obtain it.
1962 PLD 349 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT-Parties Involved: HSE YUNG HSIEH vs. THE STATE
Key Points: This case focuses on S. 3 (d) of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, in relation to R. 6. It clarifies the concept of “migration” from India and the criteria for acquiring Pakistani citizenship.
In essence, these cases provide comprehensive insights into the intricacies of domicile and citizenship in Pakistan, emphasizing the importance of domicile certificates, their issuance, validity, and the legal ramifications associated with them. The judgements also underscore the rights of individuals concerning their domicile and the roles and responsibilities of the competent authorities involved.
1987 PLD 255 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Parties Involved: KHALID SHER vs. PRINCIPAL AND CHAIRMAN, ACADEMIC COUNCIL, SELECTION BOARD
Key Points: This case discusses the terms “domicile” and “residence” within the context of admissions to Medical Colleges in Sind for the academic year 1985-86. It highlights that domicile certificates are granted under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, while permanent residence certificates are issued under the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971. Individuals possessing such certificates are deemed domiciles and permanent residents of the specified district, unless these certificates are cancelled by competent authority or proven otherwise.
1984 CLC 139 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Parties Involved: NAHEED DOST MUHAMMAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR
Key Points: This case pertains to the issuance of a domicile certificate and the absence of a statutory provision detailing the procedure for its issuance. The judgement emphasises the discretion vested in competent authorities in determining the steps required to validate the permanent place of domicile for an applicant.
1983 PLD 20 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Parties Involved: ABDUL HAFIZ KHAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KHUZDAR
Key Points: The case delves into the circumstances under which citizenship, once acquired or recognised under the Act, could be summarily, arbitrarily, and whimsically withdrawn by a Deputy Commissioner. It critiques the lack of provisions in Act II of 1951 that would permit such an action.
1982 CLC 2365 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Parties Involved: TALAT FATIMA MUHAMMAD vs. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Key Points: The specifics of this case were not provided, but given the context of the other cases and the parties involved, it likely pertains to issues of domicile, citizenship, or rights thereof.
1982 PLD 51 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Parties Involved: SAEED AMER vs. PRINCIPAL KHYBER MEDICAL COLLEGE, PESHAWAR
Key Points: This case underscores the distinction between domicile certificates issued under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and permanent Resident Certificates issued by District Magistrates. The judgement clarified that the former pertains to individuals migrating to Pakistan post-partition, while the latter relates to individuals who are long-term residents of a district.
1980 SCMR 456 SUPREME-COURT
Parties Involved: MUHAMMAD YAR KHAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-POLITICAL AGENT, LORALAI
Key Points: The Supreme Court delved into the interpretation of the language used in the columns of Form P-1 (Certificate of domicile). The judgement concluded that the terms used should be construed to mean the “permanent residence” of an applicant rather than their “domicile.”
1979 SCMR 529 SUPREME-COURT
Parties Involved: CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, BOLAN MEDICAL COLLEGE, QUETTA vs. MISS SAFIA HAMEED
Key Points: This case revisits the concept of domicile, particularly in the context of educational admissions. It establishes that the place of domicile can change under varying circumstances. The judgement also clarified the authority of a District Magistrate in issuing domicile certificates and their legal implications.
1977 PLD 22 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Parties Involved: SHAH BAZ KHAN vs. GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN
Key Points: The case emphasises the significance of a thorough inquiry prior to the cancellation of a domicile certificate. It highlighted that without a proper inquiry, the cancellation of a domicile certificate is deemed illegal and void.
1971 PLD 367 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Parties Involved: CHAUDHRY NOOR MUHAMMAD vs. PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER
Key Points: The case addresses the interpretation of the term “may” in S. 17 of the Act and R. 23 of the Rules. It reiterates that once the pre-conditions are met, an individual is entitled to a domicile certificate as a right.
1962 PLD 349 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
Parties Involved: HSE YUNG HSIEH vs. THE STATE
Key Points: The case sheds light on the acquisition of Pakistani citizenship by “migration” from India. It emphasises the significance of “intention of residing permanently” in Pakistan.
Case on the Pakistani Citizenship Act 1951
2022 PLD 171 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Parties Involved: Syed REZA ALI SHAH vs. XII MODEL CIVIL APPELLATE COURT, DISTRICT SOUTH, KARACHI
Key Points: This case emphasises the rights of children born to a Pakistani father, regardless of their birthplace. As per Section 5 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, such children are considered citizens of Pakistan by descent.
2022 PCrLJN 19 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Parties Involved: MUHAMMAD NASIR vs. State
Key Points: This case revolves around the allegations against the appellant for entering Pakistan via an unauthorized route. Despite these allegations, the appellant presented substantial documentary evidence to prove his familial links to Pakistan. The court stressed the importance of documentary evidence over oral evidence and ultimately allowed the appellant’s appeal.
2021 PLD 492 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (First Entry)
Parties Involved: ABBU HASHIM vs. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior
Key Points: This case highlights the distinction between the Citizenship Act, 1951, and the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000. While the former pertains to granting Pakistani citizenship, the latter deals with the registration of individuals and the issuance of national identity cards.
2021 PLD 492 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (Second Entry)
Parties Involved: ABBU HASHIM vs. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior
Key Points: This case clarifies the terminology used in the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. Specifically, it draws a distinction between the terms “domicile” and “permanent residence,” elaborating on their respective implications.
2021 MLD 1543 ISLAMABAD
Parties Involved: MARYAM BEGUM (AKA MS. MONI) vs. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad
Key Points: This case delves into the rights of foreign nationals residing in Pakistan. The appellant, a foreign national married to a Pakistani, was denied an extension of her “stay with husband visa.” The court ruled that while she has rights as a spouse, she does not possess an indefinite right to a family visit visa.
2021 PLD 305 ISLAMABAD (First Entry)
Parties Involved: Hafiz HAMDULLAH SABOOR vs. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad
Key Points: The case underscores the significance of birthright citizenship. It asserts that anyone born in Pakistan post the commencement of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, is a citizen by birth, barring specific exceptions.
2021 PLD 305 ISLAMABAD (Second Entry)
Parties Involved: Hafiz HAMDULLAH SABOOR vs. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad
Key Points: This segment emphasises that the onus is on the State to establish that, despite having been born in Pakistan, the individual does not fall under the mandate of Section 4 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951.
2021 PLD 305 ISLAMABAD (Third Entry)
Parties Involved: Hafiz HAMDULLAH SABOOR vs. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad
Key Points: The case critiques the National Database and Registration Authority’s decision to block the CNICs of certain individuals based on intelligence agency reports. The court highlighted the severe consequences of such an action and ruled in favour of the petitioners, directing the restoration of their CNICs.
2021 PLD 187 ISLAMABAD
Parties Involved: Mst. SAMINA NAZ vs. PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad
Key Points: This case addresses the complex scenario of a Pakistani woman who renounced her Pakistani citizenship after marrying an Indian national. The court determined that while she had certain rights as a spouse of a Pakistani national, she had no inherent right to an indefinite family visit visa.
2021 PLD 187 ISLAMABAD (Mst. SAMINA NAZ v. PAKISTAN):
Main Issue: Citizenship by descent and conditions for regaining Pakistani Citizenship after renunciation.
Findings: The court held that the petitioner’s renunciation of Pakistani Citizenship meant that her minor children residing outside Pakistan also ceased to be citizens of Pakistan. However, they could resume their Citizenship under R.19-B of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, within one year of turning twenty-one. Further, the daughter, born after the renunciation, remained an Indian citizen. The court concluded that conditions imposed for granting Pakistani Citizenship were not arbitrary and the petition was dismissed.
2020 PLD 716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (SUMAYYAH MOSES v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, FAISALABAD):
Main Issue: Nationality of minors.
Findings: As per S.5 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, all children born of a Pakistani father, regardless of birthplace, are considered citizens of Pakistan by descent.
2019 PLD 133 SUPREME-COURT (MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SHAIKH v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN):
Main Issues: Employment of dual nationals in Pakistan, regaining Pakistani Citizenship after renunciation, and legal anomaly in issuing Pakistan Origin Cards (POC) to dual nationals.
Findings: The court clarified that dual nationals were citizens of Pakistan and faced no restrictions in terms of their employment as Federal or Provincial civil servants. However, armed forces had their policies which did not permit recruitment of dual nationals. The court also addressed the anomaly in issuing POC to dual nationals and directed the Federal Government to reconsider the relevant section.
2019 PCrLJN 135 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (Qazi QASIM v. State):
Main Issue: Nationality proof and the rights of Bengali-origin citizens in Pakistan.
Findings: The court held that official documents provided by the accused, issued by competent authorities after due verification, could not be termed valueless. The court further stated that Bengalis, residing in Pakistan before 1975, were given statutory recognition as citizens of Pakistan.
2018 PLD 49 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN (MUBASHAR MEHMOOD v. HOME AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS):
Main Issue: Cancellation of Domicile Certificates.
Findings: The court found that authorities cancelled domicile certificates without following the prescribed procedure. The court emphasised that every citizen is entitled to be certified under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 and cannot be deprived of such right arbitrarily.
2018 PLD 529 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (MUHAMMAD AFZAL v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN):
Main Issue: Eligibility of a dual national to contest in the Cricket Association election.
Findings: The court held that by virtue of a specific notification, the defendant did not cease to be a Pakistani citizen despite being a dual citizen. Hence, he was eligible to contest the election.
2021 PLD 187 ISLAMABAD (Mst. SAMINA NAZ vs. PAKISTAN)
Analysis: This case delves into the complex issue of citizenship by descent. The petitioner, originally a Pakistani citizen, renounced her citizenship after marrying an Indian national. The judgment highlights the intricacies of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, particularly Rule 19-B, which allows for the resumption of Pakistani citizenship for children of such parents under specific conditions. The crux is that while citizenship can be renounced, the legal ramifications of such actions, especially when they involve children, can be complex and multifaceted.
2021 PLD 187 ISLAMABAD (Mst. SAMINA NAZ vs. PAKISTAN) – Commonwealth Citizenship
Analysis: This case extends the narrative of the previous case by introducing the concept of Commonwealth Citizenship. It underscores the provisions of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, which accommodate the status of a Commonwealth citizen. However, the rules and the Act don’t cater to specific scenarios where Commonwealth citizens residing in Pakistan could apply for Pakistani citizenship, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
2020 PLD 716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (SUMAYYAH MOSES vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, FAISALABAD)
Analysis: This case reinforces the fundamental principle of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, where children of a Pakistani father are considered Pakistani citizens by descent, irrespective of their place of birth.
2019 PLD 133 SUPREME-COURT (MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SHAIKH vs. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN)
Analysis: Across multiple sub-citations under this case, the Supreme Court delves into the topic of dual nationality. The judgments underscore that while dual nationality holders are, by default, citizens of Pakistan, their employment within certain sectors, especially the armed forces, may be restricted. The case also examines the anomalies present in the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance regarding the issuance of Pakistan Origin Cards to dual nationals.
2019 PLD 201 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN (MUBASHAR MEHMOOD vs. HOME AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS)
Analysis: The case underscores the importance of due process and the principles of natural justice when revoking citizenship rights, particularly domicile certificates. The case exemplifies the potential consequences of administrative overreach and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding citizens’ rights.
2018 PLD 529 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN)
Analysis: This case brings to the fore the intersection of sports administration and citizenship laws. The court establishes that holding dual nationality, under the specific provisions of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, does not automatically disqualify an individual from contesting elections within cricket associations.
2018 PLD 681 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT (FAZAL RABI vs. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN)
Analysis: This case reiterates the principle that citizenship is determined by the nationality of one’s parents, not solely by the place of birth. It emphasizes that mere residence or birth in Pakistan does not automatically confer citizenship rights.
2018 PLD 912 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (ALI RAZA vs. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN)
Analysis: A continuation of the theme from the Peshawar-High-Court’s decision, this case further elaborates on the legal relationship between an individual and a state. The Lahore High Court solidifies the concept that citizenship is a legal status determined by law and not by individual choice.
Further Analysis of Pakistani Citizenship Cases
SAEED ABDI MAHMUD vs. NATIONAL DATABASE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY (2018 CLC 1588)
In this case, the central issue revolved around the citizenship by birth. The petitioner, Saeed Abdi Mahmud, was denied a Computerized National Identity Card on the premise that his parents were Somalian nationals. Notwithstanding, the petitioner argued that he was born, educated, and residing in Pakistan. The crux of the decision was that any individual born in Pakistan, regardless of the nationality of their parents, could apply for citizenship by birth under S.4 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. The High Court directed the petitioner to approach the Federal Government with the requisite application forms, following which the authorities would decide on his application in line with the law.
MAJID HUSSAIN vs. FARRAH NAZ (2017 YLR 84)
The case brought into question the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court in Pakistan in matters involving spouses from Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The Court emphasized the significance of determining whether the wife was a subject of “Held Jammu and Kashmir” or “Azad Jammu and Kashmir”. The Court held that mere residence in Pakistan after marriage does not automatically grant one Pakistani citizenship. Given that the parties were permanent residents of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and the marriage was registered there, the Family Court in Pakistan did not have jurisdiction unless a part of the cause of action had accrued within its jurisdiction.
Mst. RUKHSANA BIBI vs. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN (2016 PLD 857)
This case highlighted the discrimination faced by foreign male nationals who migrated to Pakistan and married Pakistani women. The Court opined that such discrimination violated both the Constitution of Pakistan and various international instruments. The High Court subsequently directed the authorities to grant citizenship to the foreign national husband of the petitioner after the necessary procedures were completed.
JAMAL-UD-DIN vs. NATIONAL DATABASE AND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY (2015 PLD 117)
This case dealt with the challenges faced by individuals declared as foreigners in Pakistan. The Court reaffirmed the importance of obtaining a certificate of domicile and taking the oath of allegiance as prerequisites for being considered a bona fide citizen of Pakistan.
IMRAN AHMED vs. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (2014 PLD 218)
In this case, the petitioner, a civil servant, married a foreign national without obtaining the required “No Objection Certificate”. The Court held that while not seeking the certificate might be considered misconduct, it does not invalidate the marriage. The Court directed the authorities to grant the necessary permissions to the petitioner so he could proceed with the requisite applications under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951.
Peer TARIQ AHMAD vs. ELECTION TRIBUNAL (2013 MLD 1763)
This case revolved around the rejection of nomination papers of a respondent holding dual citizenship. The Court observed that a person cannot represent the citizens of Pakistan in Parliament if they have renounced their Pakistani citizenship.
Syed MEHMOOD AKHTAR NAQVI vs. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (2012 SCMR 1101 and 2012 PLD 1089)
These cases delved into the implications of dual nationalities of members of Parliament. The Supreme Court maintained that members of Parliament with dual nationalities contravened the provisions of Art. 63(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Court directed that such members should be suspended from their positions in Parliament and should not participate in policy-making for the country until the final decision of the case.
2012 PLD 1089 SUPREME-COURT:
The primary contention in this case was the validity of a Senator’s claim of renouncing his foreign citizenship prior to contesting in the Senate elections of 2008. The court found discrepancies in the Senator’s claims and the evidence provided by the foreign border agency. As a result, the Senator was directed to refund all monetary benefits obtained during his tenure, and the Election Commission was instructed to initiate legal actions against him. The case underscores the importance of truthfulness and transparency, especially when making official declarations.
2012 PLD 1089 SUPREME-COURT (second citation):
This case focused on the disqualification of Parliamentarians based on their dual citizenship. It was determined that those holding dual citizenship at the time of submitting their nomination papers were disqualified and had made false statements. The court ordered the de-notification of their memberships and mandated the refund of all monetary benefits they received during their tenure.
2012 PLD 1089 SUPREME-COURT (third citation):
This citation delves into the spirit behind Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution. The court emphasized the essence of loyalty to Pakistan, suggesting that dual citizenship could lead to a conflict of interest, especially if the foreign citizenship required renouncing allegiance to Pakistan. The judgment accentuates the notion that public representatives should exhibit undivided loyalty to the nation.
2012 PLD 1054 SUPREME-COURT:
Similar to the second citation of 2012 PLD 1089, this case again reiterates the disqualification of Parliamentarians possessing dual citizenship. The court’s decision here reflects a stringent interpretation of the Constitution and laws, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the country’s legal and constitutional mandates for those in public office.
2012 PLD 1054 SUPREME-COURT (second citation):
This particular case involved a Senator who claimed to have applied to renounce his foreign citizenship before contesting in the Senate elections. However, the court found evidence suggesting otherwise. The court’s decision, in this case, highlights the significance of honesty and the potential consequences of falsifying information in official declarations.
Interpretation of the Constitution: The court adopted a strict and literal interpretation of Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution and related provisions, leaving little room for ambiguity. The clear message is that the provisions of the Constitution are to be upheld in their entirety, without exception.
Accountability and Consequences: The court’s decisions not only rendered the concerned Parliamentarians disqualified but also mandated them to repay all monetary benefits accrued during their tenure. This serves as a strong deterrent for future candidates, ensuring that they comply with constitutional provisions and other related laws.
Role of the Election Commission: The court’s directives to the Election Commission to take legal action against the disqualified Parliamentarians and to scrutinise the credentials of other members underscores the importance of the Election Commission’s role in ensuring that only eligible individuals hold public office.
Implications for Future Candidates: The judgments have set a clear precedent for future elections. Candidates must ensure complete compliance with the eligibility criteria set out in the Constitution and related laws. The court’s decisions serve as a reminder that any deviation or misrepresentation can have serious legal consequences.
The Essence of Public Office: The decisions emphasize that holding public office is a ‘sacred trust’, and those in such positions are viewed as fiduciaries. This reiterates the high standards of integrity, loyalty, and commitment expected from individuals representing the people of Pakistan.
2012 CLC 24 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:
The case revolves around jurisdictional aspects of the Family Court in Pakistan when parties are citizens of the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The court upheld that if one party resides in Pakistan, the Family Court in Pakistan can entertain the suit. This ruling reinforces the concept that permanent residents of Azad Jammu and Kashmir migrating to Pakistan are deemed as Pakistani citizens.
2012 MLD 1508 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR:
The central issue is the validity of holding two domicile certificates concurrently, one from District Bhimber (AJ&K) and another from District Gujrat (Pakistan). The court ruled that an individual couldn’t hold domiciles of two places simultaneously, leading to the cancellation of the domicile certificate from District Bhimber.
2011 PLD 21 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN:
The focus is on the issuance and subsequent cancellation of domicile certificates. The court emphasized that if a domicile certificate is acquired through fraudulent means or misrepresentation, the concerned authorities have the right to cancel it. The Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, guides the process.
2010 YLR 269 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:
The jurisdictional capacity of Family Courts in Pakistan is again in focus, especially concerning individuals who might possess dual nationality. The court determined that unless there’s a formal renunciation of Pakistani citizenship (in line with the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951), a person remains a Pakistani citizen and can avail the jurisdiction of Pakistani courts.
2008 PLD 49 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:
This case underscores the right to education and challenges the notion of domicile based on ancestry as an irrelevant consideration. The court emphasized that public authorities might confine educational rights to residents of a particular area, but the ancestry shouldn’t be a determining factor.
2008 MLD 573 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:
The acquisition of dual domicile certificates is once again the primary concern. The court ruled against the possession of two domicile certificates and stressed the need for genuine and honest representation when applying for such certificates.
2008 PLD 1 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT:
This case is particularly notable as it highlights gender equality issues in Pakistan’s Citizenship Act, 1951. The Federal Shariat Court deemed it discriminatory that Pakistani women couldn’t acquire Pakistani citizenship for their foreign husbands, whereas Pakistani men could do so for their foreign wives. The court urged the President of Pakistan to amend the act to ensure gender equality.
2007 PTD 67 SUPREME-COURT:
The case deliberates on the challenge to the constitutionality of a statute based on Article 25 of the Constitution by a company. The Supreme Court held that such a petition is not maintainable without joining its shareholder or director.
2007 CLD 1 SUPREME-COURT & 2007 PLD 133 SUPREME-COURT (3 instances):
These cases revolve around the Federation of Pakistan challenging the constitutionality of a statute based on Article 25 of the Constitution. The core issue here was whether a company could challenge the constitutionality of a statute under Article 25 of the Constitution without joining its shareholder or director. The Supreme Court held that such a constitutional petition was not maintainable without the inclusion of the shareholder or director.
2007 YLR 1897 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH & 2008 MLD 573 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:
Both cases address the allegations of individuals entering Pakistan illegally. In the former, the evidence presented about the accused’s father having a valid National Identity Card and other documents led to the conviction being set aside. In the latter, the accused was alleged to have entered Pakistan illegally in 1985, but evidence, including the Pakistan Citizenship Act of 1951, supported the accused’s claim of citizenship. The court found the evidence produced by the accused weightier than that of the prosecution.
2006 PLD 465 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (2 instances):
These cases involve Mst. Naseem Akhtar and the Director-General Immigration and Passport. The first case delves into the issuance of official/gratis passports to high functionaries and judges of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The court held that these individuals should not be excluded from the benefits provided to other superior court judges in Pakistan. The second case concerns the treatment of residents of former State of Jammu and Kashmir. The court reiterated that their treatment should not differ from other citizens of Pakistan concerning passport issuance.
2008 PLD 1 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT:
This case involves the Federal Shariat Court taking suo motu notice of the rights of married Pakistani women to secure Pakistani citizenship for their foreign husbands. The court found that the existing law was discriminatory and repugnant to the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah. The President of Pakistan was directed to amend the relevant section of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951.
2006 MLD 986 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:
This case involves the issuance of a Domicile Certificate. The petitioner claimed the property had been in their possession since 1951. The court held that the petitioner had proven they had been residing in District Rajanpur for over a year, making them eligible for the issuance of a domicile certificate.
2006 PLD 674 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (2 instances):
The cases involve the declaration of properties as ‘abandoned’. In the first case, the court held that the Abandoned Properties Organization did not have the authority to declare a property as ‘abandoned’ based solely on a letter from the owner renouncing Pakistani citizenship. In the second case, the court reiterated that the onus to prove that someone had renounced their Pakistani nationality lay with the organisation.
2005 PLD 412 SUPREME-COURT:
This case concerns Mst. Narmeen S. Hussain and the Administrator, Abandoned Properties Management. The issue revolved around the declaration of a property as ‘abandoned’. The court held that the property could not be declared as such based on the mother’s letter alone, as she had never renounced her Pakistani nationality.
2005 CLC 1392 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: The case deals with the domicile certificate granted to the petitioner that was cancelled based on a Council of Elders’ report. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Tribunal F.C.R. for further disposal.
2005 CLD 1608 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: This case involves the question of dual nationality. The plaintiff’s name was removed from a membership register due to his dual nationality (U.S.A. and Pakistan). However, a subsequent notification allowed for dual citizenship. The court held that the removal of the plaintiff’s membership was void.
2004 PCRLJ 1755 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: The case revolves around an individual’s passport issued by the U.K. Government without a visa entry. The court considered the circumstances of the individual’s mother, who was born, died, and was buried in Pakistan, suggesting that he was a citizen of Pakistan.
2003 PTD 1652 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN: The case pertains to wealth tax and dual citizenship. The Appellate Tribunal restored the Assessing Officer’s order, stating that a Pakistani citizen with American citizenship did not lose Pakistani citizenship.
2002 CLC 413 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN: The distinction between a Local Domicile Certificate and a Domicile Certificate issued under the Pakistan Citizenship Act was discussed. The court noted that the Local Domicile Certificate is equivalent to a Permanent Residence Certificate of a particular District.
2001 PLD 78 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN: The issue at hand was the refusal to issue a domicile certificate based on the family’s shifting to another district. The court held that domicile pertains to the entire country, not a specific district or part.
2001 PLC(CS) 312 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: The petitioner’s appointment was challenged based on his father’s domicile. The court held that a child’s domicile isn’t necessarily governed by their father’s domicile.
1999 PLD 18 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: This case concerns Afghan refugees and their status in Pakistan. The court held that Afghan refugees, being non-citizens, are governed by the Foreigners Act, 1946, and not the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951.
1998 MLD 6 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: This case revolves around the cancellation of a domicile certificate. The court observed that the petitioner had sufficient notice before his domicile was cancelled.
1998 PLD 59 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: This case pertains to the grant of Pakistani citizenship to aliens and the criteria for the same.
1997 CLC 16 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: The case pertains to the plaintiff, a citizen of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, who sought dissolution of her marriage. Initially unsuccessful in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the plaintiff then filed a suit in Mansehra, North-West Frontier Province (Pakistan), securing a decree for dissolution based on Khula. The central issue was the applicability of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, to the parties. The court ruled that the Family Court in Mansehra lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit between the spouses, thereby declaring the judgment and decree rendered by the Family Court at Mansehra as having no legal effect.
1997 PLC 214 LABOUR-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-SINDH: The employee, having dual nationality due to her marriage to a foreigner, was terminated from her employment with a foreign airline on the grounds that she failed to obtain a work permit from the Government of Pakistan. The Labour Court reinstated the employee, asserting that she retained her Pakistani nationality. The employee was reinstated but denied back benefits. The court determined that she was entitled to these back benefits, as she had informed her employer about her dual nationality from the outset.
1996 PLD 163 SUPREME-COURT: The appellant was denied admission based on her father’s domicile certificate. The court found the refusal to admit the appellant on such grounds was not legally sustainable. As both the appellant and respondent were in their fourth year of medical studies, the respondent’s case was recommended for sympathetic consideration, while the appellant would continue her studies based on her right.
1995 SCMR 1554 SUPREME-COURT: The appellant, having migrated to Pakistan in 1971, sought Pakistani citizenship. The facts established that the appellant had set roots in Pakistan, and as per Section 14-B of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, the appellant attained the status of a citizen of Pakistan.
1989 MLD 4719 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The court highlighted that female citizens of Pakistan, upon marrying foreigners, could retain dual citizenship of Pakistan and another country.
1999 PLD 18 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: The case clarified that a person born in Pakistan after the commencement of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, would be a citizen of Pakistan by descent if their father was a Pakistani citizen at the time of their birth.
1998 MLD 6 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: The petitioner’s domicile certificate was cancelled. The court found that the petitioner was duly notified of the inquiry relating to the authenticity of his domicile certificate and deliberately avoided it. Thus, the cancellation was valid.
1998 PLD 59 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: The petitioner, an Indian male married to a Pakistani female, sought Pakistani citizenship. The court differentiated between the terms “national” and “citizen”. The provision of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, granting citizenship to alien women married to Pakistani citizens, was deemed not discriminatory. The petitioner, being an alien male, was not entitled to Pakistani citizenship based on his marriage to a Pakistani female.
1997 PLC 214 LABOUR-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-SINDH: This case revolves around Nasim Mehdi, an employee of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. Upon marrying a foreigner, she obtained dual nationality. The airline terminated her services on the grounds of her failure to procure a work permit from the Pakistani government. The Labour Court reinstated her, determining that she retained her Pakistani nationality. However, despite her reinstatement, the airline refused back benefits, arguing her partial responsibility for non-disclosure of her dual nationality. This assertion was contested, as the employee had informed the employer from the beginning about her Pakistani nationality. The court held that in the absence of any contributory negligence by the employee, she shouldn’t be denied the back benefits she rightfully deserved.
1996 PLD 163 SUPREME-COURT: Zubeda Bibi was denied admission due to her father’s domicile certificate from a district that was later bifurcated. The Selection Committee declined her admission because her father’s domicile certificate, although indicating her permanent residence in Chaman, did not reflect its subsequent inclusion in the Pishin District. The High Court dismissed her constitutional petition against this denial. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the failure of the appellant’s father to obtain a fresh domicile certificate from the Pishin District was not a valid reason to deny the appellant admission, especially since both she and her father were bona fide domiciled in Chaman, now part of Pishin District.
1995 SCMR 1554 SUPREME-COURT: Akhtar Hussain Jan, along with his father, migrated to Pakistan in 1971 and sought Pakistani citizenship. The facts confirmed that they had remained in Pakistan since their migration, with the appellant’s father residing in Pakistan until his demise in 1985. Furthermore, the appellant married a Pakistani woman, had a child, and established a business in Pakistan. These facts substantiated the appellant’s claim under Section 14-B of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, thus confirming his status as a Pakistani citizen.
1989 MLD 4719 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The ruling emphasises that female Pakistani citizens, when married to foreigners, retain the right to dual citizenship, allowing them to maintain their Pakistani citizenship while also acquiring the citizenship of another country.
From these cases, it is evident that the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, plays a pivotal role in determining the citizenship status, rights, and entitlements of individuals, especially in the context of dual nationality, migration, and domicile-related matters. Each case offers a unique perspective on the application and interpretation of the Act in various circumstances.
Key issues from the case laws and commentaries
(1) Issuance of Passport and Its Implications on Citizen’s Rights:
The ability to travel internationally is fundamentally linked to the possession of a passport. Refusing to issue a passport effectively restricts a citizen’s right to exit and can have detrimental impacts on them. Even if we argue from the perspective that the issuance of a passport is a privilege granted by the government, rather than an inherent right of the citizen, the refusal to grant such a privilege undoubtedly affects the individual adversely.
The exercise of power in granting or refusing the issuance of a passport is a manifestation of public power. As with any exercise of public power, it is imperative that it be executed in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor prejudicial to the citizen. The objective is to ensure fairness, reasonableness, and alignment with the intentions of the law under which such power is granted.
If we consider Article 4(2)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), it underscores the principle that public power should be exercised in a manner that upholds the rights of the citizens. Hence, if the rules of natural justice aren’t explicitly excluded, they should inherently govern the exercise of public power, especially when it concerns the refusal to grant a privilege as significant as a passport. This ensures that citizens are protected against arbitrary and unfair administrative actions that could infringe upon their rights.
In essence, the decision to issue or withhold a passport should not be taken lightly or arbitrarily, as it directly impacts a citizen’s ability to travel and can have broader implications on their personal and professional life. (Refer: P L J 1981 Karachi 162)
(2) Citizenship and Dual Nationality in Pakistan: A Legal Perspective
The concept of citizenship is central to any nation, determining the status, rights, and obligations of its people. The legal provisions surrounding citizenship in Pakistan have evolved over time, making it a subject of much debate and legal interpretation. Key cases and constitutional articles shed light on the evolving narrative of citizenship and dual nationality in the country.
(3) Grant of Passport vs. Grant of Licence
In the context of Pakistani law, the grant of a passport is not equivalent to the grant of a licence. This differentiation is grounded in the restrictive provisions of Section 3. This legal stance was upheld in a case cited as P L J 1981 Karachi 162. In this case, it was also established that the refusal of an application for a passport doesn’t necessitate a notice of refusal. As long as the individual has an opportunity to appeal, the rule of natural justice is satisfied.
(4) Contesting Elections and Dual Citizenship
Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution of Pakistan explicitly states that a person is disqualified from being elected or being a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) if they cease to be a citizen of Pakistan or acquire the citizenship of a foreign State. This provision is unequivocal. The moment a person seeks election, this disqualification becomes applicable if they have acquired foreign citizenship. This was reinforced in the case PLJ 2005 SC 360, which highlighted that a person who has admittedly acquired citizenship of another country is disqualified from contesting elections unless they remove this disqualification as per Rule 19 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952.
(5) Dual Nationality and the Pakistan Citizenship Act
The Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and the associated rules have provisions related to dual nationality. However, the discretionary power vested in the Federal Government by Section 14(3) of the Act has led to debates on its uniformity and arbitrariness. This section allows the Federal Government to decide which countries can have a dual nationality arrangement with Pakistan. The Act and the rules don’t provide clear guidelines on this, leading to perceived arbitrariness in decisions.A significant case in this context is PLJ 2005 SC 360. This case highlighted the discriminatory nature of the Federal Government’s act of not notifying certain countries, such as the U.S.A., for dual nationality, thereby depriving Pakistani expatriates of equal protection under the law. The High Court declared Section 14(3) to be in violation of Articles 4 & 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Court emphasized the importance of citizenship as a fundamental right and the need for laws to be clear, non-discriminatory, and in line with the spirit of the Constitution.
The High Court further directed that until the law and rules are amended, Rule 19-B of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, would apply, allowing Pakistani expatriates who had previously renounced their original nationality to resume their Pakistani citizenship.
(6) Authority of District Magistrate on Domicile Certificate:
The authority vested in the District Magistrate to cancel a domicile certificate remains unquestionable, even if the certificate has been utilised for specific purposes such as college admissions. This is evident from the case where a student, having used the domicile certificate for Engineering College admission, later opted for a Medical College. The transition between educational institutions did not diminish the relevance or legitimacy of the domicile certificate. Such an assertion reaffirms the District Magistrate’s jurisdiction in these matters. (PLJ 1980 S.C. 300)
(7) The Concepts of Domicile and Permanent Residence:
The legal provisions distinguish clearly between ‘domicile’ and ‘permanent residence’. While the latter pertains to one’s physical presence in a location with an intention to remain there indefinitely, the former has broader implications, particularly in the context of Pakistan. A domicile certificate in Pakistan denotes an individual’s domicile in the country as a whole, rather than any specific region within it. It’s paramount to note that any individual who is a citizen of Pakistan by birth is inherently considered a domicile of Pakistan, unless there is an active effort to acquire a domicile elsewhere. (PLJ 1980 S.C. 300)
(8) Nuances of Citizenship:
Citizenship, within the framework of a state, is not merely a status but encapsulates the profound essence of an individual’s most fundamental rights. This sentiment is echoed in the analysis of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. Section 14(3) of this act confers upon the Federal Government the authority to decide and notify which foreign countries can maintain a dual citizenship agreement with Pakistan. The contention lies in the absence of clear, objective guidelines, which can potentially lead to decisions perceived as arbitrary. The ramifications of such a structure are significant, especially concerning the equitable treatment of Pakistani citizens residing in different foreign countries. Furthermore, the act of not including certain countries, such as the U.S.A., in the dual citizenship notification can be perceived as discriminatory and in violation of Fundamental Rights. Such provisions and their implications merit thorough judicial review to ensure that the rights of citizens are not compromised. (PLJ 2005 SC 360)
(9) Interpretation of ‘Domicile’ within the Act:
The term ‘domicile’, as used within the Act, has not been explicitly defined. However, drawing from the principles of Private International Law, ‘domicile’ can be comprehended as the place where an individual has a fixed and permanent residence and to which they intend to return after any period of absence. This interpretation further cements the distinction between domicile and mere permanent residence, with the former carrying more profound legal connotations. (PLJ 1980 S.C. 300)
In light of the above analysis, it’s evident that the legal constructs of domicile, permanent residence, and citizenship carry intricate nuances, each having distinct implications for individuals. Proper understanding and application of these concepts are crucial to ensure that the rights of individuals are upheld and protected.
(10) Implications of Dual Citizenship:
Dual citizenship, as contemplated within the Pakistan Citizenship Act, is not a straightforward entitlement. The Act provides for the possibility of dual nationality, but it is subject to conditions and limitations. Importantly, a Pakistani citizen may opt for foreign nationality, but in doing so, they make a conscious choice. However, the Act ensures that no Pakistani citizen can be stripped of their original citizenship unless the acquisition of a new citizenship mandates it as a prerequisite, or if the individual’s actions fall within the purview of Section 16 of the Act.
(11) Constitutional Protection of Citizenship Rights:
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan affords various rights to its citizens, some of which are exclusive to them, while others are available to all persons residing within the country’s borders. For instance, rights like freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of trade, freedom of speech, and equality before the law are accorded only to citizens. In contrast, rights such as the right to life, protection against illegal detention, and the inviolability of human dignity are available to everyone, irrespective of their citizenship status. The special status of a citizen, as enshrined in the Constitution, emphasises the significance of citizenship and positions it as a foundational right.
(12) Judiciary’s Stance on Citizenship Rights:
The judiciary plays a pivotal role in interpreting and safeguarding the rights enshrined in the Constitution. The Court, in its wisdom, has emphasised the essence of the legislative intent while interpreting statutes, especially in contexts where the literal interpretation might lead to outcomes incongruent with the spirit of the law. The Court’s role becomes particularly crucial when addressing issues like citizenship, where the stakes are high, and the implications profound. In the context of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, the Court has reiterated that while the Federal Government may possess certain powers, it must operate within guidelines that ensure due process and uphold the principles of equality before the law. The absence of such guiding parameters can breed ambiguity and lead to decisions that might not be in alignment with the principles of justice and equity. (PLJ 2005 SC 360)
(13) Distinction between Domicile and Permanent Residence:
The concepts of domicile and permanent residence, though interrelated, have distinct legal implications. While a domicile certificate in Pakistan signifies an individual’s domicile status in the country as a whole, it does not pertain to any specific region within Pakistan. Before being granted a domicile certificate, a person must prove their intention of permanent residence in Pakistan. It’s noteworthy that a citizen of Pakistan by birth inherently possesses the domicile of Pakistan, unless they deliberately acquire another domicile. (Refer: PLJ 1980 S.C. 300)
(14) Cancellation of Domicile Certificate in Academic Contexts:
A case highlighted the situation where a domicile certificate, initially obtained for admission into an Engineering College, became a matter of contention when the individual withdrew from the Engineering College to join a Medical College. It was argued that the certificate’s matter was no longer relevant. However, it was concluded that such a contention was untenable, and the District Magistrate indeed had the authority to cancel the domicile certificate. (Refer: PLJ 1980 S.C. 300)
(15) Overview of The Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951:
The Pakistan Citizenship Act, promulgated in 1951, comprises 23 sections, each addressing different aspects of citizenship. Notable sections include Section 3, which defines the initial citizens of Pakistan; Sections 4 to 8, which lay out the various ways one can attain Pakistani citizenship; and Section 14, which was amended to allow dual nationality for Pakistani citizens residing in specific countries. Section 16 provides conditions under which a citizen might lose their Pakistani citizenship. It’s essential to understand that long-term residence in Pakistan does not automatically grant one citizenship; the proper legal processes must be adhered to. (Refer: PLJ 2005 SC 360)
(16) Citizenship By Migration:
According to Section 3(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1951, any individual who migrated to Pakistan before 13.4.1951 is as much a Pakistani citizen as someone born within the territories that were declared as Pakistan post 14.8.1947.A person born anywhere within Pakistan’s borders and who has not subsequently lost their original domicile is considered to possess a Pakistani domicile by birth. (Refer: PLJ 1980 S.C. 300)
(17) National Identity Card Controversies:
There have been instances where individuals, specifically Afghan Refugees, claimed to be Pakistani citizens based on their prolonged residence in Pakistan. However, long-term stay in a foreign country does not automatically grant one its citizenship. Proper legal channels must be followed to acquire nationality. In the context of Afghan Refugees, they were provided temporary refuge in Pakistan and are governed by the Foreigners Act, 1946, not the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. Thus, if any non-citizen obtains a National Identity Card by furnishing false information, they, along with anyone attesting or certifying such false claims, can be penalised under the National Registration Act 1973. (Refer: PLJ 1999 Peshawar 46)
(18) Dual Nationality and Employment Rights:
-
- When an employee acquires dual nationality, it doesn’t automatically render their employment invalid, especially if they retain their original nationality.
- Employers have a duty to be transparent with employees about their rights and obligations, especially concerning dual nationality.
- Non-disclosure of dual nationality by an employee isn’t grounds for denial of rightful benefits if the employer was informed of the primary nationality from the outset.
(19) Domicile Certificate and Educational Rights:
-
-
- The presentation of a domicile certificate from a previously recognised district should remain valid even if the district undergoes administrative changes, especially if the person remains a bona fide resident of the area.
- Technical or administrative oversights should not be grounds to deny fundamental rights, such as education, especially when the original intent and criteria are met.
-
(20)Migrants’ Rights to Citizenship:
-
- Migrants from territories with special considerations, like Jammu and Kashmir, who display a clear intention to reside permanently in Pakistan and establish familial and economic ties, have a rightful claim to Pakistani citizenship.
- The act of migrating with the intent to reside and establishing socio-economic roots in a country can serve as grounds for citizenship claims.
(21) Rights of Women with Dual Citizenship:
Female citizens of Pakistan retain the right to dual citizenship upon marrying foreigners.
Gender-specific concessions in law, like those favouring women in citizenship matters, are not discriminatory but are framed considering the broader socio-legal context.
(22) Distinction between “National” and “Citizen”:
The term “national” has a broader connotation than “citizen.” While the former refers to all individuals owing allegiance to a state, the latter signifies individuals who possess specific legal rights, such as suffrage.
This distinction is crucial when determining the rights and privileges available to an individual based on their status.
In summary, while Pakistan’s legal framework provides avenues for individuals to acquire citizenship, domicile, or permanent residence, it’s paramount that these processes are followed accurately and genuinely. Misrepresentation or misuse of these provisions can have legal repercussions.
