LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that in case of off-loading a passenger, the competent officer must record brief but specific reasons in writing and provide a copy thereof to the concerned passenger.
The court passed this order in a petition of Ali Raza and others who were offloaded and observed this shall not operate as a permanent restraint. The respondents rely upon alleged insufficiency of funds and doubtful hotel bookings.
A law officer assured the court that he will take up the matter with Interior Ministry to provide one such forum to satisfy the requirement that administrative discretion ought to be accompanied by accountability and presupposes availability of review.
The court observed that the impugned action appears to be a one-time preventive measure based upon perceived documentary deficiencies.
The court; therefore, disposed of the petitions and said if the petitioners intend to travel abroad on valid visit visas and comply with the documentary and financial requirements prescribed, they shall be at liberty to do so, subject to scrutiny in accordance with law, the court added.
The court said, off-loading at the airport, moments before boarding, carries financial, reputational and psychological consequences which must be mitigated to the maximum, even if unavoidable. Such action, though preventive, is not trivial in effect and therefore demands heightened procedural care, the court added.
The court said in the cases at hand, there is no material placed on record suggesting that the petitioners have been blacklisted or permanently barred.
However, in the absence of written reasons and an articulated basis communicated to the petitioners, the action cannot be sustained to the extent it operates without transparency, the court remarked, and added that such authority must be exercised in conformity with constitutional safeguards.
The court said, the respondents have argued that off-loading is merely a preventive administrative step and not a punitive measure; therefore, detailed proceedings are not required.
The court observed that this argument, though attractive at first blush, cannot be accepted in its entirety. Even preventive measures must adhere to the principles of natural justice, unless expressly excluded by statute, the court added. Be that as it may, it is an uncontroverted position that no written order assigning reasons was furnished to the petitioners at the time of off-loading the court remarked. Recording of reasons and communication of the same lies at the heart of fair administration, the court added.
The court said, the absence of written reasons deprives the affected person of meaningful opportunity to challenge the action and undermines transparency. The statutory authority is; however, not synonymous with unfettered discretion. Every administrative action must satisfy legal and constitutional requirements of reasonableness and due process, the court added.
The court observed that right to travel abroad, though subject to statutory regulation, has consistently been treated as a valuable civil right. Any restriction thereon must be lawful, proportionate and supported by reasons, the court concluded.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.