Police officers walk past Pakistan’s Supreme Court building, in Islamabad, Pakistan, April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court declared it illegal to block the Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) of a citizen to execute a monetary decree, considering that such action exceeds the powers granted to the executing courts by the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The decision was announced by a two-member bench comprising Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan in a civil petition seeking leave to appeal. Justice Akhtar authored the detailed order.
The case arose out of an execution proceeding initiated after a monetary decree was passed in a summary suit in favor of respondent Idrees Ahmed against petitioner Agha Abid Majeed Khan.
During the execution process, the trial court ordered blocking of the petitioner’s CNIC until he provided security for the decree amount. The Sindh High Court later upheld that order, observing that blocking the CNIC was a step towards compliance with lawful court orders and noting that the decree had not been executed since March 2016.
Challenging the decision of the SHC, the petitioner contended that no provision of law empowered an executing court to block a CNIC as part of the execution of the decree. The petitioner’s lawyer Ahmer Bilal Soofi argued that such an order was outside the jurisdiction of the executing court.
During the hearing, both Sindh Additional Solicitor General and Additional Solicitor General supported the petitioner’s stand, stating that the SHC order was not legally sustainable. The court appreciated the assistance provided by law enforcement officers.
In its ruling, the SC examined Section 51 of the CPC, which describes the permissible modes of executing a decree. It noted that while clauses (a) to (d) specify particular methods of enforcement, clause (e) permits enforcement “in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted requires.”
However, the court held that this general provision cannot be interpreted so broadly as to allow measures that lose connection with the legal framework. Justice Akhtar noted that the decree in question was a mere monetary decree and did not justify blocking the CNIC of the judgment debtor.
The court warned that while a robust approach is necessary to ensure the execution of the decrees, it should not become so excessive as to deprive a citizen of essential aspects of daily life.
The judgment emphasized that a CNIC is not merely a legal formality or luxury, but has become indispensable for carrying out ordinary affairs in modern society.
Depriving a person of access to his CNIC, the SC held, amounts to restricting a fundamental necessity of life and cannot be considered a proper exercise of judicial discretion under general enforcement powers.
The court also took note of a 2018 amendment made by the Peshawar High Court (PHC) to the CPC in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP), introducing Rule 117 in Order XXI, which expressly allows blocking of a CNIC as a means of compelling attendance or completion of enforcement proceedings.
However, the SC clarified that this provision applies only within the KP and has no application in Sindh. The court further observed that the very inclusion of an express provision in the KP indicates that in the absence of such specific authorization, such power cannot be implied in the general execution clauses.
Reserving its opinion on the constitutional or legal validity of the KP amendment for an appropriate case, the SC concluded that the SHC had committed an error in upholding the order of the executing court. The court transformed the petition for leave into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the impugned order.
