RAWALPINDI: While interpreting the legislative intent behind Section 28-A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, read together with Article 15 of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to freedom of movement, the Lahore High Court (LHC), Rawalpindi Bench, set aside an earlier single-judge order that had permitted former federal minister Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed to travel abroad for Umrah, ruling that such authority rests exclusively with the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC).
Justice Jawad Hassan – author of a 23-page verdict, delivered in response to the Federation’s Intra Court Appeal (ICA), interpreted Section 28-A of Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997, stating that the travelling document – passport – of any individual charge-sheeted under the Act is deemed to have been impounded by operation of law to ensure their presence during trial.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Jawad Hassan and Justice Tariq Mahmood Bajwa emphasised that under the ATA, the High Court cannot substitute its discretion for that of the ATC in matters regarding the impounding of passports.
Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the LHC, the Federal Government has challenged an October 2025 ruling that had allowed Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed to travel to Saudi Arabia. That earlier ruling was based on a no-objection statement provided by an Additional Attorney General for Pakistan; however, the Division Bench found that this concession had been made without proper authority and could not override statutory law.
In its comprehensive judgment, the Court interpreted Section 28-A of the ATA, noting that the passport of any individual charge-sheeted under the Act is “deemed to have been impounded” by operation of law to ensure their presence during trial.
The Bench clarified that the legislative intent of this provision is to create a mandatory legal presumption that remains in effect unless the specific trial court seized of the matter grants a temporary reprieve.
Addressing constitutional concerns, the Court ruled that while Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of movement, this right is subject to “reasonable restrictions” imposed by law in the public interest. The Bench held that Section 28-A constitutes such a reasonable restriction, as it serves the higher interest of the administration of criminal justice in cases involving serious offences. The judgment further clarified that these measures are regulatory rather than punitive, intended solely to prevent the frustration of the judicial process.
The judgment also highlighted a significant procedural lapse on the part of the respondent, noting that Sheikh Rasheed had approached the ATC for similar relief while the High Court appeal was still pending. The ATC dismissed that application in February 2026, cautioning the politician against the concealment of facts regarding his ongoing litigation.
The LHC ultimately held that the original writ petition filed by Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed was vague and failed to specifically challenge the judicial communication that had placed him on the Provisional National Identification List (PNIL). By setting aside the impugned order, the Court directed that Mr. Ahmed’s travel request be treated as a pending matter before the ATC.
The trial court is now tasked with deciding the application on its own merits, ensuring that the legal requirements for the accused’s presence are balanced against his religious obligations.
