Barrister Mian Zafar Iqbal Kalanauri
Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, FCIArb, Accredited Mediator & Master Trainer
Abstract
In 2025, Pakistan witnessed a sharp rise in complaints and media reports that passengers-particularly overseas workers and students-were being off-loaded at airports despite holding valid visas, tickets, and, in the case of workers, protection/emigration documentation. The phenomenon generated public outrage and prompted ministerial interventions, official denials and clarifications, and emerging judicial scrutiny. This article undertakes a doctrinal and policy analysis of off-loading practices within Pakistan’s exit-control framework (ECL regime, PNIL mechanism, and immigration functions of FIA), and evaluates 2025 events as a test of constitutional governance. It argues that off-loading without written legal authority, reasons, and a review mechanism is inconsistent with Articles 4, 9, 10-A and 15 of the Constitution, and risks functioning as an informal “silent ban” incompatible with rule-of-law standards. The article concludes with reforms aimed at lawful, evidence-based enforcement against human smuggling while protecting the fundamental right to travel.
Keywords: Off-loading; FIA; ECL; PNIL; constitutional rights; due process; migrant workers; administrative discretion; Pakistan airports; 2025.
1. Introduction: From Border Management to a Rights Controversy
A valid visa has traditionally signified that a traveller is entitled to depart, subject only to routine immigration checks. In Pakistan during 2025, however, that legal and practical certainty markedly eroded. Multiple credible reports documented instances in which passengers were stopped moments before boarding by immigration authorities despite possessing valid visas, tickets, and-where applicable-emigration and protection documentation. These actions were frequently justified by officials as part of an intensified strategy to combat human trafficking and irregular migration.¹ The issue escalated into a national debate when leading media outlets reported repeated off-loading incidents across major international airports, disproportionately affecting overseas workers travelling on duly issued work visas.²
This phenomenon cannot be dismissed as a mere administrative inconvenience or episodic travel disruption. Rather, it presents a profound constitutional concern. Where a citizen is prevented from travelling abroad without a written order, recorded reasons, or access to a meaningful review mechanism, the restriction risks degenerating into arbitrary administrative power, untethered from statutory authority and constitutional safeguards. The absence of transparency and procedural justification transforms what should be lawful border regulation into an exercise of unchecked discretion.
Throughout 2025, reports of such off-loading practices intensified, particularly involving overseas workers and students who had complied with all legal requirements. The public response was immediate and forceful, prompting official denials, subsequent clarifications, ministerial interventions, and emerging judicial scrutiny. At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental tension: how the state reconciles its legitimate interest in border enforcement and migration control with the constitutional limits imposed on executive discretion, especially the fundamental right to freedom of movement. It is this tension-between security-driven administrative action and law-based constitutional governance-that defines the legal and normative core of the 2025 off-loading debate.
2. Methodology and Scope
This article adopts a doctrinal research methodology, grounded in constitutional and statutory interpretation, and supplements it with a media-documented empirical narrative of off-loading incidents reported during 2025. The analysis relies primarily on:
- Official communications and reporting concerning ministerial meetings, policy directions, and administrative instructions issued in response to passenger off-loading;³
- Credible national and international press reporting detailing the scale, patterns, and operational context of off-loading practices at Pakistani airports;⁴
- Reported judicial interventions, including orders requiring explanations from authorities and the award of compensation in cases of unlawful off-loading.⁵
The article deliberately refrains from quantifying the nationwide extent of off-loading through unverified social-media claims, recognising the limitations and reliability concerns associated with such data. Instead, it evaluates the issue through high-reliability sources, including court-linked reporting and officially acknowledged events, in order to assess the legality, proportionality, and institutional accountability of the practice.
On the basis of this methodology, the article argues that off-loading undertaken without statutory authority, written reasons, and access to an effective review mechanism is inconsistent with Articles 4, 9, 10-A, and 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and therefore constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of administrative discretion.⁷
.
Constitutional Violations and Legal Grounds
| Constitutional Article | Defect Raised by Off-Loading Practice | Description |
| Article 4, 9, 15 | Restriction Without Law & Freedom of Movement | State power affecting movement and liberty must be authorized by law and exercised fairly. Preventing a citizen from traveling without a written order and recorded reasons risks becoming arbitrary power. |
| Article 10-A | Due Process | The lack of written reasons or a review mechanism constitutes a core due process defect, as the passenger cannot rebut the decision, and a court cannot meaningfully review it. |
| Ultra Vires Discretion | Screening vs. Restriction | While screening is lawful, refusing boarding to a passenger with genuine and complete documents is a substantive restriction on movement, which requires a legally cognizable basis (e.g., ECL/PNIL, documented offense) and a documented decision. |
| Article 25 | Equality Concerns | Reports consistently indicate that blue-collar workers were disproportionately affected, raising concerns that the practice, even if unintentional, may be unequal in its practical effect. |
The “Silent Ban” Critique
The practice risks functioning as an informal “silent ban,” incompatible with the rule-of-law standards. The use of “profile checking” without clear, public criteria or notification means discretionary screening becomes a de facto exit restriction.
3. Legal Framework: Who May Stop a Passenger from Leaving Pakistan?
The FIA’s immigration wing performs frontline checks against forged documents and list-based restrictions (like the ECL/PNIL).
- Policy Context: The state’s motivation for tightening controls was linked to a post-smuggling crackdown following earlier tragedies and concerns about international reputation.
- Ministerial Acknowledgement: The controversy was formally acknowledged when the Federal Minister for Overseas Pakistanis was briefed on workers being off-loaded despite having valid documents, and he stated that no one would be allowed to stop workers unlawfully.
- Official Assurances: Interior Minister stated that “No passenger with genuine and complete documents should ever be stopped from travelling”.
3.1 The constitutional baseline: “restriction only by law”
Pakistani constitutional structure requires that state power affecting liberty and movement must be authorised by law and exercised with fairness. In practical terms, when authorities stop a passenger at the last stage of departure, they must be able to point to:
- a recognised legal ground, and
- a procedurally fair decision-making process (reasons, record, review).
The 2025 controversy arises because many reported off-loadings appear to have been driven by “profile checking” or suspicion rather than demonstrable legal status (ECL/PNIL/Black List) and a written decision.⁶
3.2 Statutory authority: the ECL regime as the central legal mechanism
The clearest and most formal exit restriction mechanism is the Exit Control List (ECL)-a legal framework that (in principle) requires written authority and defined grounds. Where a person is on ECL, restriction is grounded in a formal instrument rather than frontline discretion.
The policy problem in 2025 is the perception that exit restrictions were being applied even where ECL-style written authorisation was absent.
3.3 FIA immigration functions and administrative tools
The FIA’s immigration wing performs frontline checks and may act against forged documents, smuggling indicators, and list-based restrictions. In 2025, however, reporting repeatedly described off-loading despite valid visas justified under broad anti-smuggling narratives.⁷ That creates an administrative-law question: what is the boundary between lawful screening and unlawful restriction?
4. The 2025 Timeline: What Happened and Why It Matters
Judicial interventions in 2025 demonstrated that courts are increasingly treating off-loading as a rights-and-procedure issue requiring justification.
- Compensation: The Sindh High Court (SHC) ordered the FIA to pay the full cost of an air ticket to a student who was “unjustifiably offloaded,” recognizing the arbitrary action as actionable state harm.
- Supervision: SHC proceedings required the FIA to explain the off-loading of a student proceeding abroad.
4.1 “Silent ban” narrative and early-2025 pattern claims
A widely cited report states that since early 2025, “thousands of citizens with legitimate documents” were stopped at airports by FIA immigration officers, with officials describing it as an anti-trafficking measure and travellers describing it as an assault on rights and dignity.⁸ This framing matters because it captures the central legal tension: security rationale versus procedural legality.
4.2 October 2025: “new rule” framing and scale of off-loading
Gulf News reported that a “new FIA rule” had blocked hundreds from flying abroad and cited airport-level commentary that nearly 150 travellers were off-loaded in a week.⁹ While the exact nature of any “rule” was disputed later, the report is significant as an early mainstream indication of scale and policy shift.
4.3 6 November 2025: formal ministerial intervention and acknowledgement
The strongest confirmation that off-loading was not merely anecdotal came from official and mainstream reporting of a meeting chaired by the Federal Minister for Overseas Pakistanis, where he was briefed about workers being off-loaded at various airports.¹⁰ The minister emphasised that workers were being off-loaded despite having work visas and protection certificates, and stated that no one would be allowed to unlawfully stop workers.¹¹ This acknowledgement is crucial: it reframes the issue from “isolated complaints” to a matter requiring institutional correction.
Business Recorder further reported that FIA leadership stated no new conditions or affidavit requirement had been introduced, and referenced a move toward digitising processes—suggesting the state itself recognised governance and transparency deficits needing remedy.¹²
4.4 Late November 2025: official denials, clarifications, and “damage control”
As complaints grew, Dawn reported that arbitrary off-loading had been alleged “over the past few months,” while noting the post-smuggling crackdown context.¹³ Another Dawn report quoted the Interior Minister stating clearly: “No passenger with genuine and complete documents should ever be stopped from travelling,” while those attempting travel on fake or unverified documents would be stopped.¹⁴ Geo News reported similar remarks during an airport visit, coupled with directives to investigate passenger complaints and intensify action against “agent mafias”.¹⁵ Gulf News reported the assurance as “no more off-loading” for travellers with valid documents.¹⁶
4.5 The “profile checking” critique
A detailed critique published in The Friday Times described the practice as “profile checking” without public notification, circular, or clear criteria, and highlighted the risk that discretionary screening becomes de facto exit restriction.¹⁷ This media framing is legally relevant because the Constitution tolerates lawful restrictions, not undisclosed criteria and unrecorded decision-making.
5. Emerging Judicial Signals in 2025
The five key reforms are recommended to ensure enforcement against human smuggling is lawful and protects the fundamental right to travel.
- Mandatory Written “Refusal to Depart” Slip: Every off-loading must be documented, stating the legal basis (ECL/PNIL/forgery/etc.), brief, non-conclusory reasons, and identifying the reviewing officer/unit.
- On-Site Review Mechanism: Establish a 24/7 Airport Review Desk with senior oversight to hear immediate grievances and correct wrongful decisions before flight departure.
- Public Criteria and Published SOP Summaries: Any “profile checks” must have publicly available, rights-compliant criteria detailing what triggers refusal and what documentation resolves concerns.
- Stronger Action Against Agent Mafias: Enforcement should primarily target network actors (agent mafias and exploitation) rather than presumptively criminalizing passengers.
- Data Transparency and Parliamentary Oversight: Introduce monthly, anonymized public disclosure of the number of off-loadings, their categories/grounds, airport breakdown, and reversal rates on review
5.1 Compensation as accountability: Sindh High Court (May 2025)
In May 2025, The Express Tribune reported that the Sindh High Court ordered FIA to pay the full cost of an air ticket to a student who was “unjustifiably offloaded” from an international flight at Jinnah International Airport.¹⁸ This is an important remedial development: compensation recognises that arbitrary off-loading can constitute actionable state harm, not merely administrative inconvenience.
5.2 Court supervision and explanation-seeking
The News reported SHC proceedings requiring FIA to explain off-loading of a student proceeding abroad (as reported).¹⁹ While each case turns on its facts, the broader significance is that courts are increasingly treating off-loading as a rights-and-procedure issue requiring justification.
6. Doctrinal Analysis: Why Off-Loading Despite Valid Visas Raises Constitutional Defects
6.1 Ultra vires discretion: when screening becomes restriction
Screening is lawful; restriction requires authority. If a passenger’s documents are genuine and complete, a refusal to allow boarding becomes a substantive restriction on movement and must therefore be grounded in:
- a legally cognisable basis (eg list-based restriction or documented offence), and
- a documented decision capable of review.
The Interior Minister’s own formulation-“no passenger with genuine and complete documents should ever be stopped”-implicitly acknowledges this doctrinal boundary.²⁰
6.2 Due process and reasons: Article 4 and Article 10-A logic
The absence of written reasons or a review mechanism collapses accountability. When an officer says “profile issue” or “doubt,” the passenger cannot rebut, and a court cannot meaningfully review. That is the core due process defect. The 2025 pushback-ministerial meetings, airport visits, and inquiry directions—suggests systemic recognition that unstructured discretion invites rights violations and corruption risk.²¹
6.3 Proportionality and collective punishment risk
Anti-smuggling policy may be legitimate, but it must be targeted and evidence-based. A practice that disproportionately blocks low-income workers because their “profile” resembles an irregular migration pattern risks becoming collective punishment- penalising bona fide travellers for the misconduct of a minority. The Friday Times’ critique directly raises this danger.²²
6.4 Equality concerns (Article 25 lens)
While comprehensive statistical proof requires official disclosure, the consistent narrative in 2025 reporting is that blue-collar workers were disproportionately affected.²³ Even if unintentionally, disproportionate impact demands scrutiny: equality is not only about formal neutrality; it is also about the reasonableness and fairness of state action in practice.
7. Policy Drivers in 2025: Why the State Tightened Controls
Dawn linked intensified scrutiny to the migrant-smuggling crackdown following earlier tragedies and reputational concerns.²⁴ The state’s interest is real: illegal migration networks, forged documents, and international reputational harm are serious issues. But the legal question remains: can the state pursue these ends through opaque and undocumented airport-level restrictions? Constitutional governance answers: only through lawful, procedurally fair measures.
1. The Exit Control List (ECL) Regime and Its Constitutional Function
The ECL regime represents the clearest and most formal exit restriction mechanism available to the Pakistani state1. It is the benchmark against which the arbitrary off-loading practices of 2025 are measured.
| Feature | Description | Constitutional Significance |
| Legal Basis | The ECL, in principle, requires written authority and defined grounds to restrict a person’s travel. This aligns with the constitutional baseline of “restriction only by law”. | Ensures the restriction is grounded in a formal instrument rather than personal discretion, protecting the right to liberty and movement (Article 15). |
| Distinction from Off-Loading | Where a person is on the ECL, the restriction is formal and documentable. The core policy problem in 2025 was the perception that exit restrictions were being applied even where ECL-style written authorisation was absent. | Off-loading without ECL/PNIL status represents an ultra vires discretion-an action taken without legal authority-which violates Article 4 and the fundamental right to movement. |
| The ECL/PNIL Contrast | The 2025 controversy arose because many off-loadings were reportedly driven by “profile checking” or suspicion rather than demonstrable legal status (ECL/PNIL/Black List) and a written decision. | Undocumented ‘profile checking’ circumvents the formality and procedural safeguards inherent in the ECL/PNIL mechanisms. |
2. Proportionality and the Risk of Collective Punishment
The argument concerning proportionality addresses the fairness and targeting of the state’s anti-smuggling policy, particularly as applied on the ground.
A. The Legitimate State Interest
The state has a genuine and important interest in combating illegal migration networks, forged documents, and the resulting international reputational harm.
B. The Proportionality Defect
Proportionality requires that the state’s action be appropriately targeted and evidence-based. The critique is that the off-loading practice fails this test because:
- Disproportionate Impact: The practice reportedly disproportionately blocks low-income workers because their “profile” (e.g., holding a work visa) resembles an irregular migration pattern.
- Collective Punishment Risk: By broadly targeting bona fide, low-income travellers, the state risks penalising them for the misconduct of a minority (human smugglers or document fraudsters). The restriction is applied to a category of citizens (e.g., blue-collar workers) in a way that is not strictly necessary or targeted to the specific threat.
- Unconstitutional Means: While the state’s end (curbing smuggling) is legitimate, the means (opaque and undocumented airport restrictions) are deemed unconstitutional because they lack the required procedural fairness and evidence.
The media critique-which frames the practice as “profile checking” without clear criteria-supports the constitutional argument that this is an excessive and unlawful restriction on the rights of genuine travellers.
These two analyses form the legal backbone of the article, demonstrating that the 2025 off-loading practices were deficient not only in procedure (due process) but also in substance (lack of legal authority/proportionality).
8. Recommendations: A Rights-Compliant Exit Governance Model
8.1 Mandatory written “Refusal to Depart” slip with reasons
Every off-loading/refusal should generate a signed document stating:
- legal basis (ECL/PNIL/forgery/active warrant/smuggling intelligence threshold),
- brief reasons (non-conclusory), and
- the reviewing officer/unit.
8.2 On-site review mechanism (“airport review desk”)
Establish a 24/7 airport review desk with senior oversight to hear immediate grievances and correct wrongful decisions before flight departure. This aligns with the Interior Minister’s emphasis on responsive inquiry and passenger concerns.²⁵
8.3 Public criteria and published SOP summaries
If “profile checks” exist, the criteria must be published in a rights-compliant format: what triggers secondary screening, what triggers refusal, and what documentation cures concerns. “No notification” practices undermine legitimacy.²⁶
8.4 Stronger action against visa-agent exploitation and corruption
Ministerial remarks highlight “agent mafias” and exploitation.²⁷ Enforcement should primarily target network actors, not presumptively criminalise passengers.
8.5 Data transparency and parliamentary oversight
Monthly disclosure (aggregate, anonymised) of:
- number of off-loadings,
- grounds categories,
- airport-wise breakdown,
- reversal rates on review.
This would deter abuse and enable evidence-based policy.
The essential, rights-compliant reforms aimed at preventing arbitrary off-loading while ensuring border security. These recommendations focus on introducing accountability, transparency, and procedural fairness into the exit-control process.
Here is a detailed breakdown of the five key recommendations:
1. Mandatory Written “Refusal to Depart” Slip with Reasons
This is the most critical recommendation for enforcing due process and accountability at the point of action.
- Action: Every off-loading or refusal to depart must generate a signed document.
- Required Content: The slip must clearly state:
- The legal basis for the restriction (e.g., ECL, PNIL, document forgery, active warrant, or the specific threshold of smuggling intelligence).
- Brief, non-conclusory reasons.
- The reviewing officer/unit responsible for the decision.
2. On-Site Review Mechanism (“Airport Review Desk”)
This mechanism provides an immediate, practical remedy for wronged passengers, addressing the need for a timely review (due process).
- Action: Establish a 24/7 airport review desk with senior oversight.
- Function: This desk would hear immediate grievances and be empowered to correct wrongful decisions before the flight departure.
- Alignment: This recommendation aligns with the Interior Minister’s emphasis on responsive inquiry and addressing passenger concerns.
3. Public Criteria and Published SOP Summaries
This recommendation tackles the problem of the opaque “profile checking” critique.
- Action: If “profile checks” exist, the criteria must be published in a rights-compliant format.
- Required Information: Publication should detail:
- What triggers secondary screening.
- What triggers refusal.
- What documentation cures concerns.
- Goal: Ending “No notification” practices which undermine legitimacy.
4. Stronger Action Against Visa-Agent Exploitation and Corruption
This shifts the focus of enforcement from the passenger to the criminal network.
- Action: Enforcement efforts should primarily target network actors (e.g., “agent mafias”).
- Goal: Avoid presumptively criminalizing passengers who are often victims of exploitation.
5. Data Transparency and Parliamentary Oversight
This introduces structural accountability to deter abuse and allow for evidence-based policy formulation.
- Action: Mandate monthly disclosure of aggregate, anonymised data.
- Required Data:
- Number of off-loadings.
- Grounds categories for refusal.
- Airport-wise breakdown.
- Reversal rates on review.
- Goal: To enable evidence-based policy and deter abuse
The core idea is to transform unstructured, arbitrary frontline discretion into a lawful, transparent, and accountable process. The recommended system ensures that while human smuggling is combated, citizen dignity and the rule of law are upheld.
Addressing the 2025 Timeline with Proposed Reforms
The recommendations are specifically designed to be corrective measures for the problems highlighted throughout the 2025 timeline.
Here is a summary of how the proposed reforms directly counter the events and critiques of 2025:
| 2025 Timeline Event/Critique | Constitutional/Legal Defect | How the Reform Directly Addresses the Defect |
| Early 2025: Allegations of a “silent ban” and thousands of citizens stopped by FIA immigration officers under broad anti-trafficking narratives. | Arbitrary administrative power and restriction without legal authority (Article 4, 15). | Mandatory Written “Refusal to Depart” Slip: Requires the officer to state the legal basis (ECL/PNIL/warrant) for the stop and document brief, non-conclusory reasons. This immediately removes the “silent” and undocumented nature of the ban. |
| October 2025: Gulf News reports on an alleged “new FIA rule” blocking hundreds, creating massive uncertainty about the policy shift. | Undisclosed criteria, lack of transparency, and use of “profile checking” without notification. | Public Criteria and Published SOP Summaries: Requires publication of what triggers secondary screening and refusal. This restores legitimacy and ends the confusion caused by contradictory “new rule” reports. |
| Nov 6, 2025: Ministerial meeting acknowledges that workers are being off-loaded despite valid work visas and protection certificates. | Ultra vires discretion and unconstitutional action against genuine travelers. | Stronger Action Against Agent Mafias: Shifts enforcement focus to network actors, not presumptively criminalizing bona fide workers. This targets the root cause while protecting the workers the Minister sought to defend14. |
| May 2025: Sindh High Court orders FIA to pay the full cost of the air ticket to a student who was “unjustifiably offloaded”. | State action constituting actionable harm and lack of internal accountability. | On-Site Review Mechanism (“Airport Review Desk”): Establishes a $24/7$ desk to hear immediate grievances and correct wrongful decisions before flight departure. This provides a swift, internal remedy, reducing the need for costly and time-consuming judicial intervention for every case. |
| Overall: “Profile checking” critiqued for disproportionately blocking blue-collar workers, risking collective punishment. | Proportionality deficit and systemic equality concerns (Article 25). | Data Transparency and Parliamentary Oversight: Requires monthly public disclosure of off-loading numbers, grounds categories, and reversal rates on review. This provides empirical evidence to detect and correct disproportionate impacts and ensure accountability22. |
In essence, every recommendation is a direct countermeasure to a specific failure-procedural, legal, or administrative-that occurred during the 2025 off-loading surge. The goal is to move the state’s legitimate border enforcement from opaque administrative power to lawful, evidence-based, and accountable governance
9. Conclusion
The 2025 off-loading controversy demonstrates the fragility of fundamental rights when frontline discretion is not bounded by written authority, reasons, and review. Pakistan can-and must-combat human smuggling and document fraud. Yet constitutionalism requires that enforcement be legal, transparent, proportionate, and accountable. The corrective signals of 2025-ministerial intervention, public assurances, and judicial compensation-should be translated into permanent institutional reforms. Otherwise, off-loading risks persisting as a de facto “silent ban,” undermining both citizen dignity and the rule of law.
Footnotes:
¹ Global Voices, ‘Pakistani travellers with valid visas being quietly offloaded at airports in silent ban’ (2 December 2025)
² Press Information Department, Government of Pakistan, ‘PR No 65 Islamabad: November 06, 2025’ (6 November 2025) ; Dawn, ‘FIA director general says looking into reports of workers being offloaded despite valid documents’ (6 November 2025)
³ PID (n 2)
⁴ Gulf News, ‘No more off-loading: Travellers assured with valid documents in Pakistan’ (30 November 2025); Dawn, ‘Amid reports of arbitrary offloading of passengers, FIA …’ (27 November 2025)
⁵ The Express Tribune, ‘FIA ordered to compensate student offloaded from flight’ (18 May 2025)
⁶ The Friday Times, ‘Valid Visas, Yet Offloaded: The FIA’s Controversial “Profile Checking” at Pakistani Airports’ (23 November 2025)
⁷ Dawn (n 4)
⁸ Global Voices (n 1)
⁹ Gulf News, reporting on alleged “new rule” and off-loading scale (as reported, Oct 2025) . (Note: Gulf News item on “no more off-loading” is separately cited; “new rule” narrative remains contested in later official clarifications.)
¹⁰ PID (n 2)
¹¹ Dawn (n 2)
¹² Business Recorder, ‘Minister takes notice of overseas workers being offloaded…’ (Nov 2025)
¹³ Dawn (n 4)
¹⁴ Dawn, ‘No passenger with genuine documents should be barred …’ (29 November 2025)
¹⁵ Geo News, ‘No passenger with valid documents should be stopped from travelling: Naqvi’ (29 November 2025)
¹⁶ Gulf News (n 4)
¹⁷ The Friday Times (n 6)
¹⁸ The Express Tribune (n 5)
¹⁹ The News, ‘SHC directs FIA to explain why student … was offloaded from flight’
²⁰ Dawn (n 14)
²¹ Geo News (n 15)
²² The Friday Times (n 6)
²³ Global Voices (n 1); The Friday Times (n 6)
²⁴ Dawn (n 13)
²⁵ Geo News (n 15)
²⁶ The Friday Times (n 6)
²⁷ Dawn (n 14)