ISLAMABAD (The Tribune International) — In a significant legal development, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has ordered the immediate removal of prominent YouTuber Rajab Butt from the Passport Control List (PCL), declaring that the continuation of travel restrictions without lawful justification violates fundamental constitutional rights.
The ruling was issued by Justice Muhammad Azam Khan in a detailed six-page judgement, which emphasised that any curbs on a citizen’s freedom of movement must be grounded in due process and supported by legally sustainable reasons. The court directed authorities to remove Butt’s name from the PCL without delay, provided no other valid legal barrier or court order exists.
During proceedings, it was revealed that Butt’s name had initially been placed on the PCL at the request of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA). However, the deputy attorney general informed the bench that the agency no longer had any objection to the removal of his name from the list.
In its observations, the court underscored that although authorities are empowered under the Passport Act and relevant rules to place individuals on the PCL, such powers are not absolute. Instead, they must be exercised in a fair, transparent and lawful manner. The judgement highlighted that placing a person’s name on the PCL directly affects their fundamental right to free movement, making it essential that strict legal standards are followed.
The bench pointed out serious procedural shortcomings in the case, noting that there was no evidence on record to suggest that Butt had been issued a show-cause notice before his name was added to the list. This lack of due process, the court held, rendered the action legally questionable from the outset.
Furthermore, the court clarified that merely being subject to an inquiry or investigation does not constitute sufficient grounds for imposing a travel ban. It explained that the primary purpose of placing a name on the PCL is to ensure an individual’s availability to investigators or the courts. Once that objective is fulfilled, the continuation of restrictions becomes unnecessary.
In Butt’s case, the court noted, he had already appeared before the NCCIA and fully cooperated with the investigation. There was no indication that he intended to abscond, evade legal proceedings, or interfere with the inquiry.
Importantly, the court ruled that maintaining the travel ban even after the investigating authority expressed “no objection” was both unlawful and unjustified. It concluded that continuing to keep his name on the PCL in such circumstances lacked any legal basis.
The case also carries broader implications for safeguarding citizens’ rights, reinforcing the principle that administrative actions must align with constitutional protections.
Last month, the NCCIA had formally conveyed to the court that it had no objection to Butt’s removal from the travel ban list. Earlier, a sessions court had recalled his interim bail in a case related to alleged “hurting of religious sentiments,” linked to a viral video.
Rajab Butt, who commands a massive online following, has remained a controversial figure in recent years, including scrutiny over various social media incidents.
