The Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi bench delivered a significant ruling on Wednesday by annulling a previous single bench order that had authorized Awami Muslim League (AML) leader Sheikh Rashid Ahmed to travel to Saudi Arabia for performing Umrah. This decision reinforces the legal framework governing travel restrictions on individuals accused under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), underscoring that only an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) holds the jurisdiction to grant such permissions.
The division bench, consisting of Justice Jawad Hassan and Justice Tariq Mahmood Bajwa, issued its verdict following the federal government’s intra-court appeal challenging the earlier decision in favor of Sheikh Rashid. The appeal had been under consideration since March 12, reflecting the judiciary’s careful scrutiny of procedural adherence in cases involving anti-terrorism laws. This development marks a crucial step in ensuring that legal protocols are strictly observed in sensitive matters concerning accused persons.
Previously, a single bench led by Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan had permitted Sheikh Rashid to undertake the Umrah pilgrimage. However, despite this order, Rashid was prevented from boarding his flight at the airport in November of last year. This incident prompted him to file a contempt of court petition against officials from the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) responsible for immigration and passport control, highlighting the complexities and tensions surrounding the enforcement of travel restrictions.
In its detailed 23-page judgment, the division bench clarified that Sheikh Rashid must now formally seek permission from the Anti-Terrorism Court in Rawalpindi before making any international travel plans. The court emphasized that the authority to regulate passports and approve travel for accused individuals under Section 28-A of the ATA lies solely with the ATC handling the case. This ruling effectively invalidates the earlier single bench order, reaffirming the exclusive jurisdiction of the ATC in such matters.
The bench also criticized the earlier decision, pointing out that it was based on a concession made by a law officer who lacked the proper authority to make such a commitment. The court described this concession as exceeding the officer’s legal mandate and conflicting with established statutory provisions. It further stated that no legal estoppel can arise from unauthorized concessions, as these cannot supersede existing judicial commands or the rule of law.
This verdict highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the procedural integrity of cases governed by anti-terrorism legislation. By invalidating the prior order that had allowed Sheikh Rashid to travel abroad for religious purposes, the court has sent a clear message about the necessity of following due process and respecting the jurisdictional boundaries set by law. Moving forward, Sheikh Rashid’s travel plans will depend entirely on the decision of the Anti-Terrorism Court, ensuring that legal safeguards remain firmly in place.
