‘Basic necessity, not a luxury’: SC rules CNIC blocking unconstitutional

• Verdict authored by Justice Munib Akhtar declares overturns SHC order against judgment debtor

• Emphasizes CNIC essential for normal life, noting Section 51 CPC cannot justify unrelated punitive measures

• Clarifies KPK-specific CNIC-blocking rule not applicable in Sindh, warning courts can’t deprive citizens of essential means of living

 ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Saturday overturned a Sindh High Court order that had blocked a citizen’s Computerised National Identity Card (CNIC) to enforce a court decree, ruling that “a CNIC is a basic necessity, not a luxury, and depriving someone of it is akin to depriving them of a fundamental right.”

“CNIC is not a luxury or a mere statutory formality. In today’s times, it has become essential to carry on a normal life. To curtail a judgment debtor from this is not the proper exercise of discretion or statutory powers, as erroneously concluded by the Sindh High Court,” observed Justice Munib Akhtar in a detailed three-page verdict.

The case arose from a 2016 trial court decree requiring a petitioner to pay a sum of money. After non-payment, the trial court ordered the petitioner’s CNIC to be blocked. The Sindh High Court had upheld that order, which the Supreme Court has now overturned.

The Supreme Court noted that Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) outlines the permissible modes of execution of a decree. However, it cannot be interpreted in a way that permits measures entirely unrelated to the statutory provision.

“In the present case, the decree is simply a money decree. There is no justification for execution by blocking the CNIC of the judgment debtor. If such a measure were allowed, courts could, for instance, also disconnect utilities such as electricity or water from the debtor’s residence or workplace to enforce a money decree,” the verdict said.

While courts can take robust measures to ensure execution of decrees, such measures cannot deprive a person of essential means of living, the judgment added.

The court also referred to a 2018 amendment by the Peshawar High Court in the CPC, applicable in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK). Under the amendment, Order 21, Rule 117 allows blocking a judgment debtor’s CNIC to compel attendance or execution.

The Supreme Court clarified that this provision applies only in KPK, and not in Sindh, where the present proceedings arose.

“The very fact that the Peshawar High Court included such a power demonstrates that, absent an explicit provision, no court can imply such authority under general execution powers,” the verdict stated.