The Islamabad High Court has directed authorities to remove the name of popular YouTuber Rajab Butt from the Passport Control List (PCL), issuing a detailed judgment emphasizing that such restrictions must be justified and legally sound.
Justice Azam Khan of the Islamabad High Court delivered a six-page written verdict in the case, ordering concerned authorities to immediately strike the petitioner’s name off the PCL, provided there is no other legal barrier or order from a competent court.
The court observed that the authority to place individuals on the Passport Control List is not unlimited and must be exercised in a fair and lawful manner. It noted that inclusion in the PCL directly affects a person’s fundamental right to free movement, which cannot be restricted without strong and valid reasons.
According to the judgment, any restriction on travel rights must be supported by concrete justification. The court further explained that the primary purpose of placing a name on the PCL is to ensure an individual’s appearance before investigative agencies or courts when required.
Once that purpose is fulfilled or no longer relevant, continuing the restriction becomes unnecessary and unjustified, the court added.
The decision highlights the judiciary’s stance that administrative powers related to travel restrictions must be used cautiously and in accordance with due process. The court stressed that such measures should not be arbitrary and must remain subject to legal oversight.
Following the order, relevant authorities are expected to comply and remove Rajab Butt’s name from the list unless any other valid legal proceedings require otherwise.
The case has drawn attention due to the growing use of the Passport Control List in various legal and investigative matters, and the court’s ruling reinforces the principle that such tools must not infringe on constitutional rights without proper justification.
Rajab Butt, a well-known Pakistani content creator, has a large following on social media platforms, and the case had sparked public interest among his fans and the broader online community.
The verdict is seen as an important reminder of the balance between state authority and individual rights, particularly in matters involving freedom of movement and legal accountability.
