LHC refuses to quash FIR against passengers detained on begging charges

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that the rights of freedom of movement and religion are fundamental, but not absolute and may be lawfully restricted under specific circumstances.

Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh observed that the international human rights law recognises these rights but also sets out permissible limitations to ensure public order, safety, health, and the protection of the rights of others.

The judge made these observations dismissing a petition for the quashment of an FIR registered against eight persons barred from travelling to Saudi Arabia by the immigration officials at the Multan airport on suspicion of being involved in an organised begging in Gulf countries.

On July 20, 2024, shift incharge at FIA immigration, Multan airport, submitted a report regarding eight passengers travelling to Saudi Arabia via Muscat, who aroused suspicion during immigration screening.

Says rights of freedom of movement and religion are fundamental, but not absolute

Upon further inquiry, it was found that the passengers lacked sufficient financial resources and had not confirmed return tickets or mandatory hotel bookings and were unfamiliar with the requirements of performing Umrah.

During baggage searches, authorities seized 900 boxes of cigarettes and 70 boxes of nicotine pouches.

The passengers were offloaded and further interrogation revealed that they were all relatives.

A passenger namely Sadiq Hussain had motivated others to travel to Saudi Arabia for begging. Sadiq and his associates charged Rs160,000 to Rs170,000 for each visa without hotel bookings and received Rs70,000 to Rs100,000 as an advance payment from them.

The remaining balance was to be paid after the passengers engaged in begging in Saudi Arabia, the investigation revealed.

Consequently, the FIA registered an FIR under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2018 (PTPA), Section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).

The passengers filed the petition before the high court seeking cancellation of the FIR, pleading that the authorities’ actions violated their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, specifically Articles 15 and 20, which safeguard the right to travel and the freedom to practise religion, including the right to perform Umrah.

A deputy attorney general opposed the petition, saying during recent months, complaints had surged from various countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE and Malaysia, that Pakistani citizens go there and engage in begging.

He said all passengers travelling abroad are interviewed at immigration counters at the airports.

He said particular attention is given to those travelling to Saudi Arabia who must undergo comprehensive screening and profiling to verify their eligibility and authenticity as Umrah pilgrims or visitors.

As part of this process, Umrah pilgrims are required to demonstrate possession of sufficient Saudi riyals to cover their expenses.

In his judgement, Justice Sheikh observed that beggary is a complex social issue often rooted in poverty, lack of opportunities and systemic inequalities.

The judge noted that the investigating officer apprised that during the investigation, the FIA collected evidence that the petitioners were habitually engaged in sending innocent people abroad under the pretense of Umrah visas and exploiting them for begging.

He observed that the right to travel, whether domestically or internationally, can be restricted for reasons such as national security, public health concerns, or the requirements of criminal justice.

Similarly, he said, the right to practise one’s religion, while protected, may be limited when it poses risks to public safety, morality, or infringes on the rights of others.

Justice Sheikh ruled that the FIA immigration official was justified in offloading the eight passengers as his action was aimed at protecting the public interest and ensure compliance with international obligations.

With these observations, the judge dismissed the petition saying there are no grounds for quashing the FIR.

Published in Dawn, February 6th, 2025