A stark legal anomaly in Pakistan places it among 50 countries out of 190, as given in a 2024 World Bank Group report, where women are denied the equal right to grant nationality to their foreign spouses. This discriminatory law is now at the heart of a growing crisis as Pakistan’s Illegal Foreigners Repatriation Plan, initiated in 2023, has resulted in the deportation of more than 850,000 Afghans by April 2025, leaving Pakistani women, their Afghan husbands and families in precarious situations.
Behind the staggering number of deportations are thousands of human stories: families uprooted, lives undone, and rights denied. Among those deported, and others still facing the threat of deportation, are Afghan husbands of Pakistani women; men who have lived, worked, and raised families in Pakistan for years, but who remain legally invisible in the eyes of the state. They were never granted the simple right to stay, not because they posed a threat or lacked roots here, but because our citizenship law does not allow Pakistani women to confer citizenship on their spouses on equal terms as it allows Pakistani men.
Under Section 10 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, a foreign woman married to a Pakistani man is eligible to apply for Pakistani citizenship. However, this right is not extended to foreign men married to Pakistani women. The provision specifically states that “a woman who has been married to a citizen of Pakistan shall be entitled… to be registered as a citizen of Pakistan,” with no mention of foreign husbands. This silence reflects a legal framework that continues to view nationality through a male-dominated lens, denying Pakistani women equal standing in matters of family and citizenship.
Such disparity directly violates Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. It also places Pakistan in breach of its obligations under international law, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which affirm the right to family life and equal treatment in nationality laws.
It also stands in conflict with Pakistan’s own constitutional promises. Article 35 obliges the State to protect the family, marriage, the mother, and the child. Yet the current law leaves families vulnerable, not protected. Article 31 encourages Islamic values in lawmaking, while Article 227 requires conformity with Islamic injunctions, both of which emphasise justice, fairness, and the sanctity of family, values contradicted by this discriminatory provision.
Historically, the courts played a significant role in shaping how Section 10 was understood, often interpreting it through a lens that prioritised state control and immigration concerns over constitutional equality. In Sharifan v. Federation of Pakistan (1998 PLD 59), the Lahore High Court justified Section 10(2) by emphasising the potential risks of unregulated immigration and invoking the “status of women under private international law.” Rather than questioning the gender disparity, the court treated the limitation on Pakistani women’s ability to confer citizenship as a necessary safeguard.
The Constitution is clear, and the courts have shown the way. It is now the responsibility of the Parliament and the executive to act. No family should be forced to separate because the law refuses to see them. No citizen should have to fight for the right to live with their spouse and children. As Pakistan looks ahead, the test of its commitment to constitutional rights lies not in words but in action and in whether it chooses to stand with women and the families it has long overlooked.
However, over time, judicial approaches began to shift. In 2006, the Federal Shariat Court in the Suo Moto Case No. 1/K of 2006 reinterpreted the provision through the lens of constitutional rights and Islamic principles of equality, declaring Section 10(2) to be in violation of Articles 2A and 25. The Court urged that the law be amended within six months to reflect constitutional and religious commitments to non-discrimination, yet nearly two decades later, that directive remains unimplemented.
Recent cases have also reaffirmed the discriminatory nature of the provision. In 2016, the Lahore High Court in Mrs Rukhsana Bibi v. Government of Pakistan (2016 PLD 857) declared that excluding foreign husbands lacked rational justification and was “arbitrary and unconstitutional.” More recently, in 2023, the Peshawar High Court, in Mst. Naureen Masood v. Government of Pakistan (Writ Petition No. 2469-P of 2022) struck down NADRA’s requirement that foreign spouses provide valid passports and visas to obtain Pakistan Origin Cards (POCs). The court recognised the undue hardship this placed, particularly on Afghan husbands, who often could not obtain documentation from a country they fled decades ago. It held that such a rigid application of the rules violated constitutional protections of due process and family unity.
In a landmark step, the Sindh High Court in 2024 went even further. Rather than striking down Section 10(2), the Court used the doctrine of “reading in” to interpret the law as gender-neutral, inserting “or man” wherever “woman” appeared. It observed that if the drafters had foreseen constitutional developments toward gender equality, they would not have excluded women from transmitting citizenship. The judgment was an effort to uphold constitutional values without nullifying the statute altogether.
Yet despite these significant judicial interventions, the law remains unchanged. Political hesitation, bureaucratic inertia, and enduring patriarchal attitudes have prevented tangible reform. A misplaced fear that allowing foreign husbands citizenship rights will open the door to mass immigration, particularly from Afghanistan, prevails as part of the narrative.
However, this fear ignores reality: the men at stake here are not recent arrivals. They are established members of the community, husbands and fathers who have built their lives in Pakistan. The denial of citizenship to these foreign husbands of Pakistani women appears to stem more from a reluctance to grant Pakistani women equal standing with men in matters of citizenship than from any genuine security concerns. It raises questions about who is considered a full citizen and whose familial ties are valued.
The human cost of inaction is enormous. Afghan husbands, many of whom fled war and persecution, now face deportation to a country where they may encounter insecurity and violence. Pakistani women married to Afghans facing deportation are forced to make impossible choices for themselves and their families: to separate, or to uproot their entire lives by following their deported husbands into an uncertain future. If they stay behind, these Pakistani wives are left to raise children alone, while grappling with fear and uncertainty surrounding their husbands’ fate, and children are forced to grow up without the presence of their fathers, leaving lasting scars on their development and well-being. These are not abstract legal or political issues; these are real lives being disrupted, families torn apart, and individuals facing potential danger– all in the name of discrimination. The urgency for a just and humane resolution is clear.
Pakistan now faces an important decision. It can either maintain a citizenship framework that perpetuates discrimination and inequality, or take meaningful steps toward upholding its constitutional commitments to equality and family protection for half of its population. Amending Section 10 to allow both Pakistani men and women to confer citizenship on their foreign spouses is not merely a technical adjustment; it is a necessary reform to ensure equal treatment under the law. Such a change would acknowledge that Pakistani women are entitled to the same rights and recognition as men, and that all families, regardless of the nationality of one spouse, deserve the protection and stability that citizenship provides.
The Constitution is clear, and the courts have shown the way. It is now the responsibility of the Parliament and the executive to act. No family should be forced to separate because the law refuses to see them. No citizen should have to fight for the right to live with their spouse and children. As Pakistan looks ahead, the test of its commitment to constitutional rights lies not in words but in action and in whether it chooses to stand with women and the families it has long overlooked.
