The Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi bench delivered a significant verdict on Wednesday, annulling a previous single bench order that had granted Awami Muslim League (AML) leader Sheikh Rashid permission to travel to Saudi Arabia for performing Umrah. This decision underscores the judiciary’s insistence on strict adherence to legal protocols, particularly in cases involving the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA).
The division bench, consisting of Justice Jawad Hassan and Justice Tariq Mahmood Bajwa, issued the ruling following the federal government’s intra-court appeal challenging the earlier decision. This appeal was initially reserved for judgment on March 12, reflecting the court’s careful consideration of the matter before reaching its conclusion. The bench clarified that only an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) possesses the jurisdiction to authorize travel abroad for individuals accused under the ATA.
It is worth noting that the original permission for Sheikh Rashid’s Umrah journey came from a single bench led by Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan. However, this order faced immediate practical challenges when Sheikh Rashid was stopped at the airport in November of the previous year, preventing his departure. This incident led Rashid to file a contempt of court petition against the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) immigration and passport officials, highlighting the complexities surrounding the enforcement of judicial orders in sensitive cases.
In its detailed 23-page judgment, the division bench emphasized that Sheikh Rashid must now formally approach the Anti-Terrorism Court in Rawalpindi to seek permission for international travel. The verdict explicitly stated, “The Anti-Terrorism Court shall hear the matter and decide the law,” reinforcing the exclusive authority of the ATC under Section 28-A of the ATA to regulate passports and travel permissions for accused individuals.
The court further criticized the previous single bench order, pointing out that it was issued based on a concession made by a law officer who lacked the legal authority to grant such permission. The bench described this concession as exceeding the officer’s lawful mandate and conflicting with established statutory provisions. The verdict underscored that “No estoppel arises from a concession made without authority, as it cannot override an existing judicial command,” thereby invalidating the earlier ruling.
This development highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding procedural integrity in cases involving anti-terrorism laws, ensuring that no shortcuts are taken in matters of national security and legal compliance. Meanwhile, the decision sends a clear message about the limits of judicial discretion and the importance of following due process when dealing with accused persons under the ATA.
In a related development, this ruling may set a precedent for similar cases where accused individuals seek to travel abroad, reinforcing the role of specialized courts like the ATC in overseeing such requests. The case continues to attract attention due to Sheikh Rashid’s political prominence and the sensitive nature of the charges involved.
