Key Takeaways
- Peshawar High Court dismissed petitions from a former Afghan general and special agent seeking protection against arrest and deportation.
- The court ruled that fears of Taliban persecution do not constitute valid grounds for invoking constitutional jurisdiction.
- Matters related to immigration, visas, and residency fall within the executive’s domain according to the court.
In a recent ruling, the Peshawar High Court has rejected petitions filed by a former general of the erstwhile Afghan National Army (Milli Urdu) and a special agent of the former Afghan Presidential Protective Service (PPS), along with their families. The petitioners had approached the court fearing persecution by the Taliban government in Afghanistan if deported.
The bench, comprising Justices Wiqar Ahmad and Kamran Hayat Miankhel, dismissed two almost identical petitions filed by Baryalai Sharifi and Abdul Mujeeb Ghairat and their family members. The counsel for Mr Sharifi argued that his clients were Afghan nationals who had entered Pakistan on valid visas.
Mr Sharifi’s wife was claimed to have served as an assistant doctor in the PPS, while his son reportedly worked as a training camp guard in the same service. The counsel further stated that Mr Sharifi had approached the Society for Human Rights and Prisoners’ Aid (SHARP) for pre-screening in connection with an international protection and resettlement process.
The court observed that 'mere apprehension' of future arrest, detention or deportation does not furnish a valid ground for invoking constitutional jurisdiction. The bench noted that such speculative fears do not constitute concrete cause of action or demonstrated violation of law.
In the case of Mr Ghairat, his counsel argued that he and his family were residing in Pakistan on valid visas and had applied online for their renewal. He stated that Mr Ghairat had served as a special agent in the former PPS, an elite US-trained security unit responsible for the close protection of the then Afghan president.
The court observed that 'matters relating to the stay of foreign nationals in Pakistan, grant, extension or cancellation of visas, and their immigration status are governed by the relevant statutory framework and fall within the exclusive domain of the competent executive authorities.'
Furthermore, any request for international protection, refugee processing or resettlement through SHARP, UNHCR or any third country does not create an enforceable legal right against the respondents capable of being enforced through a constitutional petition.
The court’s decision underscores that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is limited to specific and concrete violations of rights rather than speculative fears.
