LHC rules only ATC can allow foreign travel for accused under ATA

Rawalpindi, March 18, 2026 — In a significant ruling on the scope of travel restrictions under anti-terrorism law, the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) has held that only the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) can permit an accused person to travel abroad where their passport stands impounded under Section 28-A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

The judgment came in an intra-court appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against an earlier order of a Single Judge that had allowed Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed to travel to Saudi Arabia for the purpose of performing Umrah. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Jawad Hassan and Justice Tariq Mahmood Bajwa, set aside that order, holding that the High Court had overstepped by granting relief in a matter squarely falling within the statutory domain of the trial court.

At the heart of the case was the interpretation of Section 28-A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, a provision the Court described as both mandatory and overriding. The Bench explained that once an accused is charge-sheeted under the Act, their passport is deemed to be impounded automatically by operation of law. While the restriction is not absolute, any relaxation — including permission to travel abroad — can only be granted by the ATC seized of the matter, which is best placed to assess the circumstances of the case.

The Court was particularly critical of the manner in which the earlier relief had been granted. It noted that the Single Judge’s order was primarily based on a statement by a law officer indicating that the government had “no objection” to the respondent’s travel. Rejecting the legal effect of such a concession, the Bench held that a statement made without lawful authority cannot override a statutory command or a subsisting judicial order.

Addressing arguments grounded in fundamental rights, the Court reaffirmed that the right to movement under Article 15 of the Constitution is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. In this context, Section 28-A was held to be a lawful mechanism aimed at ensuring the presence of an accused during trial and preventing evasion of the judicial process.

The Bench also took note of the respondent’s subsequent conduct, observing that he had approached the ATC during the pendency of the appeal seeking similar relief, thereby implicitly acknowledging it as the proper forum.

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the impugned order but directed that the respondent’s application pending before the ATC be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law.

The ruling underscores the primacy of statutory forums in matters governed by special laws and reiterates that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass procedures expressly laid down by the legislature.

The judgment can be downloaded from the Lahore High Court website by clicking here.