Qanuni Amdad urdu: Lepalak Id card process

2/11/2025

Lepalak Id card process

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W. P.No.855 of 2014

Kainat Akhtar

Regional Headquarter NADRA etc.

J U D G M E N T

Date of Hearing

26.02.2014.

Petitioner By:

Mr. Nadeem Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate.

Respondents By:

Mr. Jamil Khan, Law Officer for NADRA

Ayesha A. Malik J: Through this petition, the Petitioner seeks a

direction to the Respondent NADRA for issuance of her computerized

National Identity Card (CNIC).

The case of the Petitioner is that she is a citizen of Pakistan by birth.

She was adopted by Shamim Akhtar who has obtained a guardianship

certificate on 23.5.2005 from the court of Mrs. Lubna Ali, Guardian Judge-I,

Lahore vide Guardian Case No.39/GC of 2005. After obtaining the

guardianship certificate, the guardian applied for B-Form which was issued

by the Respondents on 6.6.2006. Thereafter the Petitioner applied for a

passport which was also issued to the Petitioner on 12.2.2011 in which the

father‟s name is shown as Guardian Shamim Akhtar. The Petitioner applied

for her CNIC where she clearly stipulated that her guardian‟s name is

Shamim Akhtar. However the Respondents have denied the Petitioner the

issuance of her CNIC essentially on the ground that she did not have the

required information under the parentage column as she was an adopted

child.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the B-Form has been

issued which clearly provides in the column of father‟s name that the

Petitioner is „Lay Palik‟. In the column of the mother‟s name it provides the

name of the guardian Shamim Akhtar. Similarly he argued that on the

passport it provides that she has a guardian by the name of Shamim Akhtar.

He further argued that no information has been withheld from the

W.P. No.855 of 2014

Respondents yet despite the same the Petitioner has not been issued her

CNIC. He argued that the basis for issuance of the CNIC is the B-Form and

that the Respondents have denied the Petitioner her fundamental right as the

citizen of Pakistan. Learned counsel further argued that on 22.3.2006

A/Director General of the Respondents issued a letter to the Headquarters

NADRA (SRC Dte), Islamabad requiring a policy to be formulated with

respect to adopted children under guardianship. However he argued that

despite the same no such policy has been made rendering the Petitioner

without any remedy against the Respondents.

Report and parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the

Respondents. Learned Law Officer on behalf of the Respondents argued that

the Petitioner has been granted guardianship certificate on 18.5.2005 from

the court of Mrs. Lubna Ali, Guardian Judge-I, Lahore. The Petitioner is still

a minor and under the Majority Act 1875 until she attains the age of 21 years

she cannot file the instant petition. He further argued that the B-Form shows

that the father‟s name is „Lay Palik‟ whereas the mother‟s name is shown as

Shamim Akhtar. He argued that Shamim Akhtar is the name of the guardian

and not the name of the mother of the Petitioner. Further argued that even on

the Secondary School Certificate her parentage is mentioned as Shamim

Akhtar whereas Shamim Akhtar is the guardian of the Petitioner. He argued

that the record of the Petitioner is contradictory, hence she has been denied

the issuance of the CNIC. He argued that the record does not clearly

stipulate that the Petitioner is an adopted child because in the B-Form in

column of mother it says Shamim Akhtar and in the passport under the

father‟s name it says Guardian Shamim Akhtar. He argued that the Petitioner

should rectify her status as „adopted child‟ on her Secondary School

Certificate, on the B-Form as well as on the passport after which the

Respondents will consider her case for the purposes of issuance of the

CNIC.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the

record available on the file.

The preliminary objection raised by the learned Law Officer for

Respondent NADRA is with respect to the maintainability of the instant writ

W.P. No.855 of 2014

petition on the ground that the Petitioner had not attained majority, hence

she is not entitled to file the instant writ petition. The record shows that the

Petitioner‟s date of birth is 22.7.1995 making her 18 years 6 months and 7

days. The Petitioner is pursuing the instant writ petition for her fundamental

right to be issued a CNIC as a citizen of Pakistan. This petition is

maintainable and there is no substance in the objection raised by the learned

Law Officer.

The basic reason for denying the Petitioner her CNIC is that she is an

adopted child. A guardianship certificate has been issued by the court of

competent jurisdiction on 23.5.2005. This is not denied by the Respondents.

The objection of the Respondents is that she does not have a mother or

father and that she is adopted by Shamim Akhtar, hence she cannot show the

name of Shamim Akhtar as her mother or her father. Specifically the

Respondents have objected to the fact that on her Secondary School

Certificate it says “son/daughter of Shamim Akhtar”. On her Intermediate

Part-I and Part-II Annual Examination it says “Father‟s name-Shamim

Akhtar” and on the passport it says “Father‟s name-guardianship Shamim

Akhtar”. The Respondents case is that the record of the Petitioner is

contradictory and it is unclear from the record as to whether Shamim Akhtar

is the mother or the father or the guardian. The Respondents have also raised

the objection that the Petitioner should change her documentation to show

her status as an „adopted child‟ under the guardianship of Shamim Akhtar. I

have heard the learned Law Officer at length and find that the arguments

raised by the Respondents are without any merit or legal justification. The

Petitioner applied for her CNIC. A review of the form filed by the Petitioner

shows that it clearly mentions the name of her guardian as Shamim Akhtar.

Column No.11 of the CNIC Form specifically asks for „Guardian Name‟

which the Petitioner has provided. Serial No.9 asks for relationship with

family head and the Petitioner has written adopted child against that

question. Therefore there is no contradiction in the record of the Petitioner

with respect to the fact that she is under the guardianship of Shamim Akhtar

by virtue of Guardianship Certificate dated 23.5.2005.

W.P. No.855 of 2014

National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000

(NADRA Ordinance 2000) preamble stipulates that it is an Ordinance to

provide for the establishment of the National Database and Registration

Authority so as to facilitate the registration of all persons and the

establishment and maintenance of multipurpose database, data warehouses,

networking, interfacing of databases and related facilities. Section 9 of the

NADRA Ordinance 2000 provides that every citizen in or out of Pakistan

who has attained the age of eighteen years shall get himself and a parent or

guardian of every citizen who has not attained that age shall, not later than

one month after the birth of such citizen, get such citizen registered in

accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. The primary purpose of

this Ordinance and the authority thereunder is to register persons or classes

thereof including citizens. It has already been held by this Court in the case

titled ‘Muhammad Salah-ud-Din Vs NADRA’ (PLD 2012 Lahore 378) that a

national database is to be maintained by the respondent. This database

record maintains all the required data regarding a citizen, thus establishing

a database or information base known as the citizen database. Every citizen

is required to be registered with the respondent and to effectuate the

registration every citizen is issued a national identity card. The national

identity card is a legal document for identification of a citizen. Its issuance

means that the information contained therein is valid and correct. Every

citizen who has attained the age of eighteen years is entitled to get himself

registered with the Respondent No.3. Section 9 of the NADRA Ordinance

2000 specifically addresses every citizen who has attained eighteen years to

get himself registered and every parent or guardian of every citizen to

which seeks the details of the applicant for the CNIC contemplates the

category of „Guardian‟ and also inquires the relationship with the family

head to be explained. The Petitioner is under the guardianship of Shamim

Akhtar as issued by the Guardian Court on 23.5.2005. She is entitled to

registration with the Respondents and for issuance of her CNIC. Under the

circumstances there is no justification to deny the Petitioner issuance of her

CNIC.

W.P. No.855 of 2014

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The Respondents are

directed to issue the CNIC to the Petitioner forthwith.

(AYESHA A. MALIK)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting

JUDGE

گود لی گئی بچی کا شناختی کارڈ کے حصول کے لیے قانونی حق

لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے ایک اہم مقدمے (W.P. No. 855 of 2014) میں فیصلہ دیا جس میں کائنات اختر نامی ایک گود لی ہوئی بچی کو شناختی کارڈ جاری کرنے سے متعلق قانونی معاملات زیر بحث آئے۔

کیس کا پس منظر

کائنات اختر، جو پیدائشی طور پر پاکستان کی شہری ہے، کو شمیم اختر نے گود لیا تھا اور اس سلسلے میں گارجین جج، لاہور سے 23 مئی 2005 کو سرپرستی (گارجین شپ) کا سرٹیفکیٹ حاصل کیا تھا۔ بعد ازاں، نادرا نے بچی کا "ب فارم" بھی جاری کیا، اور 2011 میں اسے پاسپورٹ بھی جاری کر دیا گیا، جس میں والد کے خانے میں "Guardian Shamim Akhtar" درج تھا۔

جب کائنات نے کمپیوٹرائزڈ قومی شناختی کارڈ (CNIC) کے لیے درخواست دی، تو نادرا نے یہ کہہ کر کارڈ جاری کرنے سے انکار کر دیا کہ والدین کے خانے میں مطلوبہ معلومات موجود نہیں ہیں کیونکہ وہ ایک گود لی گئی بچی ہے۔

درخواست گزار کے دلائل

کائنات اختر کے وکیل نے دلائل دیتے ہوئے کہا:

نادرا نے پہلے ہی ب فارم اور پاسپورٹ جاری کیا ہے، جن میں گارجین کا ذکر موجود ہے۔
نادرا کے قوانین کے مطابق ہر 18 سال یا اس سے زائد عمر کے شہری کو CNIC حاصل کرنے کا حق ہے۔
نادرا کی پالیسی میں گود لی گئی (adopted) بچوں کے حوالے سے واضح قانون سازی کی کمی ہے۔
نادرا کی درخواست کے فارم میں "Guardian Name" اور "Relationship with Family Head" جیسے خانے موجود ہیں، جہاں کائنات نے واضح طور پر اپنی حیثیت درج کی تھی۔

نادرا کے اعتراضات

نادرا کے وکیل نے موقف اختیار کیا کہ:

درخواست گزار ابھی 18 سال کی عمر مکمل نہیں کر چکی، اس لیے وہ خود کیس دائر نہیں کر سکتی۔
درخواست گزار کے دستاویزات میں تضاد ہے، کیونکہ کہیں ماں کے خانے میں شمیم اختر کا نام ہے اور کہیں والد کے خانے میں گارجین کے طور پر درج ہے۔
کائنات کو چاہیے کہ وہ اپنی تمام دستاویزات پر "گود لی گئی بچی" (Adopted Child) کا واضح ذکر کروائے۔

عدالتی فیصلہ

فاضل جج جسٹس عائشہ اے ملک نے قرار دیا کہ:

کائنات کی عمر 18 سال سے زائد ہو چکی ہے، اس لیے اس کی درخواست قابلِ سماعت ہے۔
نادرا کا یہ مؤقف غلط ہے کہ وہ شناختی کارڈ جاری نہیں کر سکتا، کیونکہ نادرا کے اپنے قوانین کے مطابق گارجین شپ تسلیم شدہ حیثیت ہے۔
نادرا قومی شناختی کارڈ کے اجرا سے انکار کر کے بنیادی انسانی حقوق کی خلاف ورزی کر رہا ہے۔
عدالت نے نادرا کو حکم دیا کہ وہ فوری طور پر کائنات اختر کو شناختی کارڈ جاری کرے۔

نتیجہ

یہ فیصلہ پاکستان میں گود لی گئی بچوں کے قانونی حقوق کے حوالے سے ایک سنگِ میل ہے۔ اس کیس نے ثابت کیا کہ نادرا کو اپنے قوانین میں گود لی ہوئی (Adopted) اولاد کے لیے واضح پالیسی بنانی چاہیے تاکہ ایسے بچوں کو شناختی کارڈ کے حصول میں کسی رکاوٹ کا سامنا نہ کرنا پڑے۔

یہ کیس ان تمام والدین اور سرپرستوں کے لیے ایک نظیر (precedent) ہے جو گود لی گئی اولاد کے قانونی حقوق کے تحفظ کے لیے کوشاں ہیں۔ اگر آپ کے پاس ایسا کوئی مسئلہ ہے، تو آپ عدالت سے رجوع کر سکتے ہیں اور اپنے حقوق کا تحفظ کر سکتے ہیں۔

اگر آپ کو یہ معلومات مفید لگیں تو ہمارے بلاگ کو فالو کریں اور مزید قانونی رہنمائی کے لیے ہم سے رابطہ کریں۔

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.