CO5

LAW STUDENTS COUNCIL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

(LSCMCC’23)
SUPREME COURT OF RAGNELL, 2023

CAPITAL LAW FIRM

(PETITIONERS)
VERSUS
FEDERATION OF RAGNELL
(RESPONDENTS)

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER

-1-
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................................ 4
NATIONAL LEGISLATIONS ................................................................................................................. 4
BOOKS .................................................................................................................................................... 4
CASE LAWS ............................................................................................................................................ 4
INTERNATIONAL CASES ..................................................................................................................... 4
ONLINE ARTICLE .................................................................................................................................. 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................. 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................................ 6
ISSUES RAISED ..................................................................................................................................... 7
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ................................................................................................................ 8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................................... 11

1. The registrar has no authority to decide upon the maintainability of petition….…………… 11
2. This issue falls under the ambit of Article184: .............................................................................12
3. The decision of the government to deport refugees was unlawful and unconstitutional.…….13
4. The refugees born in Ragnell are entitled to Ragnellian citizenship..................…….…………14
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..........................................................................................................................17

-2-
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION MEANING

CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF RAGNELL,

1973

ECA ELECTION COMMISSION ACT, 2017

RCA THE RAGNELL CITIZENSHIP ACT , 1951

UNHCR UNITED NATION HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES

UDHR UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SCR SUPREME COURT OF RAGNELL

RLD RAGNELL LAW DECISION

-3-
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

NATIONAL LEGISLATIONS :
The Constitution of Ragnell 1973

Supreme Court Rules, 1980

The Election Commission Ragnell rules,2017

BOOKS :
The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan by Abdul Basit.
CASE LAWS :
Muhammad Ahsan Abid Vs Makhdoom Khusru Bakhtiar, etc and Makhdoom Hashim Jawan Bakht.

Qausain Faisal Vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Interior, etc.

PLD 1999 Peshawar 18.

PLD 2016 SC 269.

Supreme Court in Al-Jehad Trust vs. Federation of Pakistan (1999 SCMR 1379).

Sindh High Court in Najib Zariab Ltd vs the Government of Pakistan (PLD 1993 Karachi 93).

Federation of Pakistan and others vs. Shaukat Ali Mian and others (PLD 1999 SC 1026).

Raheel Azizi vs. State (W.P. 1666/2023).

IN AAMIR AMAN VS. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (PLD 2020 SINDH 533).

HAFIZ HAMDULLAH SABOOR V. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN (PLD 2021 ISLAMABAD 305) .

FAZAL HAQ VERSUS NADRA AND OTHERS (W.P. NO. 1254/2022).

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS:
UDHR (UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS).

UNHCR (UNITED NATION HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES).

ONLINE ARTICLE :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/polipers.16.2.0059

-4-
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Council for the petitioner hereby humbly submits that the Honorable Supreme Court of
Ragnell has extra-ordinary jurisdiction to grant constitutional petition under Article:184(3) of the
Constitution of Ragnell. As the aforementioned clause (3) of the article explicitly states that ;
“Without prejudice to the provision of the article 199, supreme court shall if it`s considers that
a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement any of the fundamental rights
conferred by Chapter 1 of part II is involved , have the power to make an order of the nature
mentioned in said article”.

-5-
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Ragnell, a nation of 200 million, grapples with a two-decade-long wave of terrorism and civil
war, resulting in 83,000 lives lost and a financial toll of 35 trillion rupees. Monalia has been
grappling with terrorism, invasions, political unrest, and civil wars for the past four decades.
The latest civil war, concluding in 2022, led to a conservative and repressive local militia taking
control of the Monalian government. This regime has banned girls' education and targeted
political and ideological opponents. Three million Monalian refugees reside undocumented in
Ragnell, adding strain to the nation. In July 2023, Ragnell's President dissolved the National
Assembly, forming an interim government.

Later, on October 30, the Ministry of Interior announced a deadline for all illegal foreigners to
leave by November 30, causing speculation of targeting Monalian refugees. The UNHCR
condemned this decision on November 5, while refugees born in Ragnell faced statelessness due
to procedural flaws. The deportation threatens education, particularly for girls, echoing
Monalia's oppression. Capital Law Firm invoked Article 184 of the Ragnellian Constitution,
filing a petition against the deportation of Monalian Refugees.

-6-
 ISSUES RAISED

1. . Whether the registrar has authority to decide upon the maintainability of the
petition;

2. Whether this matter falls under the ambit of Article 184;

3. Whether the decision of the government to deport refugees was lawful;

4. Whether the refugees born in Ragnell are entitled to Ragnellian citizenship;

-7-
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

-- (1)--

The registrar has no authority to decide upon the maintainability of the petition.

Article 191 of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court may make rules regulating the
practice and procedure of the Court. The rules made under the said Article by the Supreme Court
are called the Supreme Court Rules 1980 .Under the said Rules, the powers of the Registrar are
primarily covered under Order III Rule 10, Order V Rule 1(6), Order VII Rule 7 and Order XVII
Rule 5, which simply regulate the practice and procedure of the Court and are merely administrative
in character. The Rules empower the Registrar to ensure that the form and presentation of the
petitions or the appeals are in order according to the Rules. The Registrar does not enjoy any
power under the Rules to decide upon the maintainability of a petition or an appeal.

-- (2)--

This issue falls under the ambit of Article184

Article 184(3) is remedial in character and is conditioned by two prerequisites namely,

a. The seriousness of matter which is of public importance

b. The sufficiency of forum for the enforcement of a fundamental right

-8-
The situation involves a large number of Monalian refugees residing undocumented in Pakistan,
creating a significant humanitarian and social issue .Various national and international human rights’
organizations have condemned this decision and warn that this would lead to a devastating crisis.
Since this repatriation is not voluntary, nor is the Government of Monolia facilitating the same, it is
possible that many of those being deported will die of cold and hunger amongst them would be
Ragnell citizens who never stood a chance to prove their legal claims.

-- (3)--

The decision of the government to deport refugees was unlawful and

unconstitutional.

The powers of the Caretaker Government as provided for in the Constitution and the Elections Act
lack the mandate to make a mass deportation policy, especially one that would effectively reverse a
45- year-old tolerant policy towards immigrants from Monalia.

--(4)--

The refugees born in Ragnell are entitled to Ragnellian citizenship.

Refugees who were actually born in this country and, as per Section 4 of the Citizenship Act, 1951,
have a solid claim to birthright citizenship. That they have remained without documents because
there were procedural flaws in the system of Ragnell, despite the law and despite court judgments
in their favor.

-9-
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

The registrar has no authority to decide upon the maintainability of the petition.

In the present scenario The Capital Law Firm had filed a petition under Article 184(3) in
accordance with the Supreme Court of Ragnell Rules 1980 to suspend the government's
deportation orders. However, the Registrar of the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on
maintainability grounds. The petition raises a justifiable issue, and it is contended that Registrar,
whose powers are administrative in nature, lacks the authority to dismiss the petition. Capital
Law Firm has filed an appeal against the Registrar's decision.

REASONS AND GROUNDS:

1.1 Article 191 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court ‘to make rules regulating
the practice and procedure of the Court. Under such enabling provisions of the Constitution, the
Supreme Court Rules 1980 have been made. The powers of the Registrar under Rule 10 of Order
III along with Rule 7 of Order VII of the Rules are purely administrative in character, which allow
him to enforce the practice and procedure of the Court in relation to the presentation of cases and
ensure that the form of the pleadings and the documents filed therewith is as per the Rules.
Rule 10(a) of Order III can be reproduced as under:
“to require any plaint, petition of appeal, petition for leave to appeal or other matters” presented
to the Court, to be amended in accordance with the practice and procedure of the Court.
Rule 7 of Order VI can be reproduced as under:
to “decline to receive any document” if it is not in accordance with the practice and procedure of
the Court
.
The Supreme Court Muhammad Ahsan Abid Vs Makhdoom Khusru Bakhtiar, etc and Makhdoom
Hashim Jawan Bakht. It is stated.

- 10 -
The powers of the Registrar are primarily covered under Order III Rule 10, Order V Rule 1(6),
Order VII Rule 7 and Order XVII Rule 5, which simply regulate the practice and procedure of
the Court and are merely administrative in character. The Rules empower the Registrar to ensure
that the form and presentation of the petitions or the appeals are in order according to the Rules.
The Registrar does not enjoy any power under the Rules to decide upon the maintainability of a
petition or an appeal. The question of maintainability of a petition or an appeal is a justiciable
issue that calls for adjudication, which is solely the prerogative of the Court in the exercise of its
judicial power.”1

The Supreme Court in the case of Qausain Faisal Vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o
Interior, etc. it is stated that

“The justiciability of the legal and factual questions raised in the petitions is a matter for the
Court to deal with and decide upon. Registrar enjoying administrative powers under the Rules
cannot assume the core adjudicatory role of the Court under the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973. There is no provision in the Rules that empowers the Registrar to
touch upon the maintainability of a petition, other than ensuring its proper form and presentation
as per the practice and procedure of the Court provided in the Rules. The maintainability and the
merits of a petition are justiciable issues, and fall within the domain of the Court.” 2

1.2 The petition raises concerns about a significant infringement of the fundamental rights of
Monalian Refugees who are for time being in Pakistan. The Registrar lacks the authority to decide
upon the maintainability of the petition, as it falls under the jurisdiction of the court. This constitutes
a clear violation of Article 10A (Right to a fair trial), as the registrar rejected the petition without
granting an opportunity to prove their legal claims and it is against the principle of fairness and
justice. Article 10-A of the Constitution guarantees the right of every person for the time being in
Pakistan to fair trial and due process. Article 10 A can be reproduced as under:

. “For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him
a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process.”

QURRAN:

1
C.M. Appeals No.39 & 41 of 2021 in Civil Appeals No. Nil of 2021
2
C.M. Appeal No.87 of 2022 in Const. Petition No. Nil of 2022

- 11 -
Surat Al Nisa , Verse 58

‫ظكُم بِ ِ ٓۦه ۗ إِنﱠ ٱ ﱠ َ كَانَ سَمِ ي ۢ ًعا‬ ۟ ‫اس أَن تَ ْح ُك ُم‬

ُ ‫وا ِبٱ ْلعَ ْد ِل ۚ إِنﱠ ٱ ﱠ َ نِ ِع ﱠما يَ ِع‬ ۟ ‫۞ إِنﱠ ٱ ﱠ َ يَأ ْ ُم ُر ُك ْم أَن ت ُ َؤد‬
ِ ‫ﱡوا ْٱﻷ َ َم ٰـنَ ٰـ‬
ِ ‫ت إِلَ ٰ ٓى أَ ْه ِلهَا َو ِإذَا َح َك ْمت ُم بَ ْينَ ٱلنﱠ‬
‫يرا‬ ً ۭ ‫بَ ِص‬

Indeed, Allah commands you to return trusts to their rightful owners;1 and when you judge
between people, judge with fairness. What a noble commandment from Allah to you! Surely Allah
is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.

2. Whether this matter falls under the ambit of Article 184;

This issue falls under the ambit of Article184

Article 184(3) is remedial in character and is conditioned by two prerequisites namely,

a. The seriousness of matter which is of public importance

b. The sufficiency of forum for the enforcement of a fundamental right

Element of public importance is sine qua non which necessarily implies that issues arising in a
case cannot be considered as a question of Public Importance if the decision is not affecting the
community at large. Reference to this has been made in the case PLD 2016 SC 2693.

The decision of the interim government to deport illegal and undocumented foreigners is being
widely condemned throughout the country. The violation of the fundamental rights of 3 million
Monalian Refugees under the Foreigners Act makes it a matter of public importance. The United
Nations High Commission for Refugees has joined in condemning the decision and is urging the
government to reconsider.

“The long stay of a foreigner in a foreign country would not automatically convert him to be the
citizen of that country unless he acquires the nationality by process of law. The Afghan refugees
have been provided refuge in Pakistan temporarily and they being not the citizen of Pakistan are
governed by the Foreigners Act, 1946 (Act XXXI of 1946) and not by the provisions of Citizenship
Act which is not applicable to them. According to the definition of 'Foreigner' given in section

3
PLD 2016 SC 269

- 12 -
2(a) of the Act (XXXI of 1946), 'Foreigner means a person who is not a citizen of Pakistan. [P L
D 1999 Peshawar 18].”4

The Monalian Refugees are governed by the Foreigners Act, 1946 (Act XXXI of 1946) who are of
time being in Ragnell. The right to due process under Article 4 of the Constitution, which is the
Pakistani equivalent of the American Due Process clause, extends to foreigners in Pakistan also. It
stipulates:

“to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of
every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.”

This decision of the Caretaker Government, is causing a massive violation of fundamental rights of
around 3 million persons of Monalian origin who are for the time being in Pakistan. There are at
least 12 fundamental rights mentioned in the Constitution whose scope has been extended to
foreigners through the use of the term “person.”. These are: Article 9 (Life and Liberty), Article 10
(Arrest and Detention procedures), Article 10A (Fair Trial), Article 11 (Slavery and forced labour),
Article 12 (Retrospective punishment), Article 13 (Self-incrimination and double jeopardy), Article
14 (Human dignity and privacy of home), Article 21 and 22 (Religious Oppression), Article 24
(Expropriation) and Article 25A (Children’s education). The state of Ragnell is under a
constitutional obligation to ensure that these fundamental rights of foreigners living for the time
being in Pakistan are secured. This obligation can only be discharged by addressing the Monalian
Refugees issues .

The provisions of the Foreigners Act are to be read together with provisions of the Constitution. It
was explained by the Supreme Court in Al-Jehad Trust vs. Federation of Pakistan (1999 SCMR
1379) 5it is stated:

“there are two categories of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution: those that for
protection to any person for the time being in Pakistan; and those that are meant to protect the
right of citizens. In the foreigners category falls the protection afforded to the right of any person
to life and liberty and safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention as well as the right to
dignity, amongst other rights. Likewise, Article 4 of the Constitution affords the protection of law
and the right to be treated in accordance with law to every person for the time being in Pakistan.

4
P L D 1999 Peshawar 18
5
1999 SCMR 1379

- 13 -
Article 10-A of the Constitution guarantees the right of every person for the time being in Pakistan
to fair trial and due process.”

Whether the decision of the government to deport refugees was lawful?

The word caretaker Government is a government temporarily in power until the election is held.
Caretaker governments carry on the routine business of government, but they are expected to refrain
from making important policy decisions. The issue of undocumented and possibly illegal Monalian
immigrants in Ragnell is not something that has suddenly cropped up during the tenure of the present
Caretake Government and therefore require urgent resolution. The decision is a major policy
decision which falls beyond the mandate of the caretaker government under the constitution and the
laws .

REASONS AND GROUNDS:

On February 7, 2017, the Federal Cabinet, which was presided by the then Prime Minister
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, took a number of important policy decisions for the management of
Monalian refugees in Ragnell. Titled as (REPATRIATION AND MANAGEMENT POLICY
FOR MONALIAN REFUGEES)

The Caretaker government whose legal mandate under Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017 is
narrow and whose constitutional mandate under Article 224 is perhaps even narrower, simply does
not have the mandate to reverse the earlier policies and to adopt a whole new policy to this issue. It
is barred by Section 230 from taking major policy decisions. The caretaker Government so appointed
was to perform functions within the scope of Section 230 of the Election Act, 2017 and that it would
restrict itself to the activities that are of routine and non-controversial .It is extremely disturbing that
instead of doing its job – preparing of Elections - the Caretaker Government is taking strategic policy
decisions whose consequence will be borne by the people of this country.

Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2023, is reproduced below:

230. Functions of caretaker Government.—(1) A caretaker Government shall

(a) perform its functions to attend to day-to-day matters which are necessary to run the affairs of the
Government;
(b) assist the Commission to hold elections in accordance with law;
(c) restrict itself to activities that are of routine, non-controversial and urgent, in the public interest
and reversible by the future Government elected after the elections; and

- 14 -
(d) be impartial to every person and political party
(2) The caretaker Government shall not—
(a) take major policy decisions except on urgent matters;
(b) take any decision or make a policy that may have effect or pre-empt the exercise of authority by
the future elected Government;
(c) enter into major contract or undertaking if it is detrimental to public interest;

2. Recognized rights of refugees and asylum-seekers under international

customary law.

Deporting refugees back to Monalia jeopardizes their fundamental right to education, especially for
girls. The ban on girls' education in Monalia, as enforced by the conservative government, not only
denies them access to schools but also shatters their dreams and aspirations. This violates the basic
human right to education as recognized globally. The conservative and repressive nature of the
current Monalian government raises serious concerns about the safety and well-being of these
Monalain people upon their return. Ragnell has international obligations to protect the rights of
Monalian refugees.

The principle of non-refoulement is a cornerstone of the international refugee protection enshrined

not only in the 1951 Refugee Convention (Art. 33(1)) but also embedded in key international Human
Rights instruments such as International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR)
and Convention Against Torture, 1984 (CAT). Principle of non-refoulment enshrined in Article 3(1)
of CAT as well as the guarantee of freedom of movement provided in Article 12(2) of ICCPR.
Pakistan is a signatory to both these conventions.
The principle of non-refoulement – i.e. that a person should never be expatriated to a state
where he or she faces the risk of political persecution – is considered by jurists to have attained
that status of international customary law. International customary law is that part of international
law which every member of the comity of nations is expected to follow, regardless of whether it has
signed any treaty or not. Therefore, even a state like Pakistan which has not signed the International
Convention on the Status of Refugees, is bound to respect this principle.

The judgment of the Sindh High Court in Najib Zariab Ltd vs the Government of Pakistan
(PLD 1993 Karachi 93) where it held:
“the community of nations requires that rules of international law may be accommodated in the
municipal law even without express legislative sanction provided they do not run into conflict with
the Acts of the Parliament…..The doctrine of incorporation also recognizes the position that the
rules of international law are incorporated into national law and considered to be part of the
national law, unless they are in conflict with an Act of Parliament, comity of nations and
municipal law must prevail in case of conflict.”

- 15 -
The principle of incorporation was endorsed by the Supreme Court in Federation of Pakistan and
others vs. Shaukat Ali Mian and others (PLD 1999 SC 1026), wherein it was held that,
“[in] Pakistan the Courts apply municipal law and not international laws in order to examine the
vires of a provision of a statute. However, if a municipal law and an international law are
consistent with each other and there is no conflict or inconsistency, the Court, to reinforce its view
as to the interpretation of a constitutional provision or of a provision of statute, may press into
service international law and/or conventions”.

This Government’s simplistic stand also fails to take stock of the constitutional right to asylum
which exists in Pakistan and has recently been reiterated by the Islamabad High Court in the famous
case of Raheel Azizi v. State (W.P. 1666/2023), it is stated:
“the fundamental rights promised by the Constitution include the rights of foreigners living in
Pakistan; and it follows that those foreigners who have a claim to refugee-status cannot be
forcefully deported – even if they are undocumented and illegal. To do so would violate
fundamental rights.”

Whether the refugees born in Ragnell are entitled to Ragnellian citizenship?

The refugees born in Ragnell are entitled to Ragnellian citizenship under Section 4 of citizenship
Act 1951.

REASON AND GROUNDS:

1. Citizenship is the most valuable basic right of a human. All other rights, whether social or political,
cannot be enjoyed if a person does not have a bond of citizenship with a State. The fundamental
rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Ragnell are rendered meaningless if a person is stripped
of citizenship. It has a devastating impact on human lives. A person once registered as a citizen
cannot be deprived of citizenship otherwise than as is provided under the law. In a nut shell,
citizenship is the sole and effective bond between a State and a human which enables the latter to
enjoy all the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It entitles the individual to the protection of
the State and to enjoy civil and political rights. A State cannot adopt policies which will have the
effect of even inadvertently rendering a person stateless. Citizenship is so precious a right that cannot
be taken away in a reckless or perfunctory manner.

STATUTES:
Citizenship Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Citizenship Act') and the Ordinance of 2000.
The Citizenship Act. The expression "citizen" has been defined under Article 260 of the Constitution
as meaning "a citizen of Pakistan as defined by law".

- 16 -
Section 2(e) of the Ordinance of 2000 defines 'citizen' as meaning a person who is, or is deemed to
be a citizen of Pakistan under the Citizenship Act.
By virtue of this law, the citizenship of Ragnell is acquired
(1) at the commencement of RCA (Ragnell Citizenship Act) in 1951,
(2) by birth in the territory
(3) by descent,
(4) in certain circumstances by migration,
(5) by naturalization,
(6) by marriage, and
(7) by incorporation of territory, as per prescribed procedures and conditions.

According to this case law, caretaker government can take urgent decision like in respect of war,
earthquake or flood having fire reading affects.

In case of KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

THROUGH SECRETARY CABINET DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,
ISLAMABAD (PLD 1988 LAHORE 725) 6, it was held that;
“ the caretaker Cabinet should confine it to take care of day-to-day administration of State and they
can take decisions requiring attention or action like in respect of war, earthquake or flood having
fire reading affects but they cannot take undue advantage either for themselves or for their political
parties and, therefore, had to remain impartial for everyone including their rivals or opponents in the
political fields and they cannot take advantage of their official position at the expenses of the other
political forces. Neutrality and impartiality, detachment and devotion of duty to carry on day-to-day
affairs of the State without keeping in view their own interest are sine qua non of a caretaker
Cabinet.”

Birthright citizenship automatically makes a person who is born in Pakistan a citizen and in this
regard the latter does not have to fulfill any prerequisites to become a citizen unlike in the case of
other categories such as 'citizenship by naturalization' or 'citizenship by immigration. This simplistic
view of the caretaker government about “illegal immigrants” fails to take account of the fact that
many of these so-called “illegal” and undocumented” refugees were actually born in this country
and, as per Section 4 of the Citizenship Act, 1951, have a solid claim to birthright citizenship. That
they have remained without documents is because there were procedural flaws in the system of
Ragnell , despite the law and despite court judgments in their favour. If the person become stateless
then it doesn`t have any right under the Constitution of Ragnell 1973 like right of employment,
access to his or her own bank accounts, the right to engage in trade, business or profession. No
innocent and eligible citizen can be allowed to suffer the devastating consequences of statelessness
on account of reckless actions of public functionaries. The caretaker government have launched a
mass deportation policy against so-called “illegal immigrants” without providing any robust

6
PLD 1988 Lahore 725

- 17 -
mechanism for distinguishing refugees, asylum-seekers and birth-right citizens. ; THEREBY IT
VIOLATES THE RULINGS OF THE SUPERIOUR COURTS OF PAKISTAN IN AAMIR AMAN
VS. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (PLD 2020 SINDH 533), HAFIZ HAMDULLAH SABOOR
V. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN (PLD 2021 ISLAMABAD 305) AND FAZAL HAQ VERSUS
NADRA AND OTHERS (W.P. NO. 1254/2022)

Section 4 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 has been interpreted by this Court in the case reported
as “Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor v. Government of Pakistan, etc.“ [PLD 2021 Islamabad 305] it is stated:
“No such process is required to be adopted by persons who are citizens by birth because it is by
operation of law. Section 16 empowers the Federal Government to deprive a person of citizenship
of Pakistan in certain specific and clearly described circumstances. The powers of the Federal
Government under subsections 2 and 3 do not extend to 'citizenship by birth' nor 'citizenship by
descent'. The power of the Federal Government in the case of circumstances described under sub
section 4 of section 16 covers 'any citizen' but to justify exercising the power, the onus would be
on the competent authority to establish the eventualities explicitly mentioned in the provision and,
in addition, explain the reasons for being satisfied that it would be in the public interest to deprive
a citizen of the latter's citizenship.”7

In the case of Fazal Haq Vs NADRA,( W.P. No. 1254 of 2022) 8, it is stated;
“Islamic Republic of Pakistan is one of the thirty countries that automatically grant citizenship to
those born on its soil subject to conditions explicitly stated in the relevant law/statute. This right
is based on the principle of ‘jus soli’ i.e. law of the soil. Many nations have changed their
respective laws e.g. France in 1993 and the United Kingdom in 1983. The State of Pakistan has
not changed nor reformed section 4 of the Act of 1951. The birth right citizenship, therefore,
cannot be denied in Pakistan unless the exemptions explicitly described under the Act of 1951 are
attracted.”

Reliance is also placed on Aamir Aman vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2020 Sindh 533), the
case of Turkish schools’ teachers whom the government was trying to deport. In this judgment,
authored “Justice Munib Akhtar as His Lordship then was, the High Court granted a stay against
deportation until such time that the teachers’ asylum application was not decided by the
UNHCR.”
UDHR:
A person once registered as a citizen cannot be deprived of citizenship otherwise than as is provided
under the law.
Article 15 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that:
'Everyone has the right of nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor
denied the right to change his nationality

7
PLD 2021 Islamabad 305
8
W.P. No. 1254 of 2022

- 18 -
 PRAYER

It is humbly prayed on behalf of the above-named Petitioners that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to:

(i) Suspend the operation of the Impugned Decision;

(ii) Restrain Respondent No. 1/Federation and its instrumentalities

From detaining, forcefully deporting or otherwise harassing anyone Who is either a refugee or an
asylum-seeker and possesses a POR, ACC, Asylum-seeker application issued by
UNHCR/Respondent No. 6 or pre-screening slip issued by UNHCR-partners such as SHARP and
SEHAR; this basic legal principle has already been Endorse by the courts of Pakistan in Raheel
Azizi v. State (W.P. 1666/2023) and Aamir Aman vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2020 Sindh533)
which ruling the respondents may be directed to implement in Letter and spirit;

(iii) Direct Respondent No. 1/Federation and its instrumentalities from Detaining, forcefully
deporting or otherwise harassing anyone who was born in Pakistan and has a claim to birth-
right citizenship in accordance with Section 4 of the Citizenship Act, 1951 and the ruling of
the Islamabad High Court in Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor vs. Federation Of Pakistan (PLD 2021
Islamabad 305);

(iv) Grant such other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the Circumstances of this
case may also be granted.

All of which humbly prayed,

Counsel for the petitioner

- 19 -