P L D 2021 Islamabad 105
(a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000)---
----Ss. 18, 10 & 23---National Database and Registration Authority (National Identity Card) Rules, 2002, R. 13---National Identity Card---Power of National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to cancel, impound or confiscate cards---Paternity recorded in NADRA---Presumption as to paternity incorporated in NADRA records---Jurisdiction of NADRA to adjudicate upon family disputes, including disputed paternity----Scope---Petitioner impugned actions of National Database and Registration Authority ("NADRA") whereby her Computerized National Identity Card ("CNIC") was impounded, and her paternity (father's name) was changed, and she was excluded from family tree of her father---Contention of respondent NADRA, inter alia, was that CNIC was obtained by unfair means and father had contested paternity and in support thereof had presented a decree in suit for jactitation of marriage---Validity----No provision existed in National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 empowering NADRA to adjudicate on disputes and contentious questions which required recording of evidence and in such matters, declaration from competent court had to be obtained and executed as per law---Authority was not empowered to decide questions as to determination of paternity and once a CNIC had been issued, then incorporated particulars could only be modified/altered in accordance with manner prescribed by R. 13 of National Database and Registration Authority (National Identity Card) Rules, 2002---Paternity, once incorporated in CNIC, could not be disputed unless person challenging same had obtained declaration from competent court---National Database and Registration Authority in the present case, relied on a decree in a suit for jactitation of marriage, and petitioner was not a party to such proceedings and said decree had no relevance whatsoever to question of paternity and NADRA was bereft of jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate on such family disputes---Impugned orders and proceedings of NADRA were declared void and illegal and NADRA was directed to restore CNIC of petitioner with observation that any change to paternity shall be subject to declaration by competent civil court---Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.
(b) Marriage---
----Jactitation of marriage, concept of---Jactitation of marriage was false and actionable boasting or claiming that one was married to another---Jactitation of marriage was a cause of action which arose when person falsely alleged that he or she was married to another person and remedy sought in such suit was perpetual injunction against person claiming marriage, to cease making such allegations.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Arts. 9 & 14---Fundamental Right to security of person, inviolability of dignity of man and privacy---Right to knowledge of paternity---Presumption as to paternity---Adjudication of denials of paternity---Scope---Paternity was state of being a father or fatherhood and was not necessarily linked to valid marriage because a child could be born even out of wedlock---Identity of an individual depended on accurate determination of parentage and knowing one's biological father's identity had nexus with emotional and psychological needs of person---Denial of such knowledge can have profound consequences in context of quality of life and such denial was breach of Fundamental Right guaranteed under Art. 9 of Constitution---Knowledge of paternity was crucial and related to self-esteem, identity, respect and privacy and was integral part of Fundamental Right to inviolability of dignity of a person under Art. 14 of the Constitution---Child or person could not be condemned unheard in a challenge to paternity of such person, and question of paternity could not be determined or adjudicated by a Family Court or Guardian Judge and could only be adjudicated upon by a civil court---Law leaned in favour of presumption of paternity rather than illegitimacy unless proved by strong evidence.
Mst. Laila Qayyum v. Fawad Qayum and others PLD 2019 SC 449; Ghazala Tehsin Zohra v. Mehr Ghulam Dastagir Khan and another PLD 2015 SC 327; Kishwar Parveen and others v. District Judge, Gujrat and others PLD 2016 Lah. 536; Iftikhar Hussain and another v. Muhammad Aslam and others 1991 MLD 1500; Mst. Aziz Begum v. Faiz Muhammad PLD 1965 Lah. 399; Zala Din and another v. Muslim Shah PLD 1968 Pesh. 87 and Muhammad Nazir and others v. Ali Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others 2003 SCMR 1183 rel.
(d) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Alternate remedy---Judicial review of administrative actions---Scope---Availability of right to appeal/alternate remedy, where an order was passed wholly without authority and jurisdiction, in a perfunctory manner and in breach of principles of due process and procedural fairness, could not be bar to exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of Constitution.
(e) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Power of High Court to impose exemplary costs on a party---Scope---High Court, under Art. 199 of the Constitution, had power and jurisdiction to order payment of exemplary costs, where it was satisfied that per facts and circumstances of a case, a party was entitled to payment of such exemplary costs by another party.
0 Comments