The Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi bench on Wednesday delivered a significant verdict by annulling a previous single bench order that had authorized Awami Muslim League (AML) leader Sheikh Rashid Ahmed to undertake Umrah in Saudi Arabia. This decision underscores the judiciary’s firm stance on the legal procedures governing travel permissions for individuals accused under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA).
The division bench, consisting of Justice Jawad Hassan and Justice Tariq Mahmood Bajwa, ruled that only an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) holds the jurisdiction to grant travel permissions to accused persons under the ATA. This verdict came in response to the federal government’s intra-court appeal challenging the earlier single bench ruling, which had been reserved since March 12. The appellate bench’s decision effectively nullifies the earlier permission granted to Sheikh Rashid, emphasizing the exclusive authority of the ATC in such matters.
It is worth noting that the initial order allowing Sheikh Rashid to perform Umrah was passed by a single bench headed by Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan. However, despite this order, Sheikh Rashid was stopped at the airport in November last year before he could depart for Saudi Arabia. This incident led him to file a contempt of court petition against the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) immigration and passport officials, alleging non-compliance with the court’s directive.
In its detailed 23-page judgment, the division bench clarified that Sheikh Rashid must now formally approach the Anti-Terrorism Court in Rawalpindi to seek permission for international travel. The court explicitly stated, “The Anti-Terrorism Court shall hear the matter and decide the law,” thereby reinforcing the procedural framework laid out in the ATA. The verdict further highlighted that the authority to regulate passports and grant travel permissions under Section 28-A of the ATA rests solely with the ATC handling the case.
The bench also criticized the earlier single bench order, pointing out that it was issued based on a concession made by a law officer, which was deemed beyond that officer’s lawful authority and inconsistent with statutory provisions. The judgment stated, “No estoppel arises from a concession made without authority, as it cannot override an existing judicial command.” This observation underlines the importance of adhering strictly to legal mandates, especially in sensitive cases involving anti-terrorism laws.
Meanwhile, this ruling sends a clear message about the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that procedural norms are respected in cases involving national security concerns. It also highlights the checks and balances within the judicial system, where higher benches can review and overturn decisions that do not align with legal standards.
In a related development, the case has drawn considerable public and political attention due to Sheikh Rashid’s prominent role in Pakistani politics and the implications of travel restrictions on political figures. The court’s insistence on following due process reflects the broader judicial approach to balancing individual rights with the imperatives of national security.
