LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has directed the immigration authorities to record contemporaneously the meaningful reasons before off-loading a passenger and ensure that the action is founded upon sufficient and objective particulars.
The court observed that such reasons should be ordinarily disclosed, including the nature of the discrepancy noticed by the officer, the questions put to the passenger, the answers furnished, the objective basis of suspicion formed, and the reasons that persuaded the authority that the off-loading was necessary.
The court also said, wherever practicable, the relevant interview process or interaction should also be appropriately documented or electronically preserved.
A copy of the off-loading order containing recorded reasons shall, as far as practicable, be supplied to the affected passenger at the earliest available opportunity, the court added.
The court passed these directions in a petition of a passenger Muhammad Abbas, who challenged his off-loading at Sialkot International Airport, despite having a valid visa, return ticket and other travel documents.
The court said it is by now a settled principle of administrative law that discretionary powers vested in public authorities are held in trust and must be exercised within the bounds of legality, fairness and rationality.
The discretion does not confer absolute or unfettered authority to act upon subjective impressions, personal suspicions or undisclosed criteria, the court added.
The court said, since the right to travel abroad and freedom of movement part of the constitutional guarantee; therefore, any restriction placed thereupon must satisfy the test of reasonableness.
The court said the consequences of off-loading may include financial loss, cancellation of travel arrangements, and expiry of visa, reputational embarrassment, mental distress and disruption of personal or professional commitments. Therefore, administrative decisions affecting civil liberties and fundamental rights must be transparent, reviewable and supported by discernible reasons founded upon objective material, the court added.
The court noted that no discrepancy, contradiction or suspicious circumstance has been identified. In absence of such particulars, the said action cannot be sustained in law and added that the impugned off-loading shall not by itself operate as a continuing restraint upon petitioner’s right to travel abroad.
The court; therefore, allowed the petition and declared the impugned action as without lawful justification and in a manner not consistent with the legal requirements of fair and reasoned exercise of administrative authority.
In case the petitioner intends to undertake foreign travel in future on the basis of valid travel documents and fulfils the applicable legal and immigration requirements, he shall be at liberty to do so subject to lawful scrutiny in accordance with law, the court concluded.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments