MUHAMMAD SALAH-UD-DIN---Petitioner Versus NADRA---Respondent

Citation: 2012 PLD 378

Result: Order Accordingly
Court: Lahore High Court
Date of Decision: 4th May, 2012
Judge(s): Ayesha A. Malik, J
Case Number: Writ Petition No.11212 of 2012
JUDGMENT

ORDER

AYESHA A. MALIK, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the
correction of the error committed by the respondent when issuing the CNIC of the
petitioner. The CNIC wrongfully mentions the name of father of the petitioner as "Haji
Faiz Din" instead of "Haji Chanan Din". The petitioner prays for a direction to the
respondent to correct the name of his father in their record.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner, who is the son of late Chanan Din and Mst.
Gulzar Begum applied for the computerized National Identity Card from the
respondent in the year 2002. The petitioner stated his correct parentage on the CNIC
form, showing his father's name as "Haji Chanan Din". At the time his mother, Mst.
Gulzar Begum also submitted her documents for the CNIC. She stated her husband's
name as "Haji Chanan Din". She was issued her CNIC on 16-2-2002 with correct
particulars. Haji Chanan Din (deceased) was shown as her husband. The petitioner was
also issued his CNIC on 16-2-2002 but with wrong particulars. His fathers name was
printed as "Haji Faiz Din" instead of "Haji Chanan Din". In the year 2009 the petitioner
applied to the respondent for the correction of the name of his father on the CNIC.
This is apparent from the token receipt filed with this petition. Vide Form
No.WH00047945 the respondent requested the petitioner to obtain a Court order for
correction of his father's name. The petitioner has tried to reason with the respondent
that this is not a case of change in name but a case of correction of office mistake of
his father's name, as printed on the CNIC. However, the respondent has refused to
correct his father's name on the CNIC. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that name of father of the
petitioner has been mistakenly written as "Haji Faiz Din" instead of "Haji Chanan Din"
on his CNIC and he has requested the respondent to make the correction of office
mistake. However, the respondent vide Form No.WH00047945, has required the
petitioner to bring a Court order for change in the name of his father. Learned counsel
for the petitioner also explained that the delay in filing this petition and for applying to
the respondent for correction of office mistake is on account of the fact that he lives in
the U.S.A along with his family.
4. Learned Legal Advisor for the respondent present on Court's call has shown
and relied upon the Standard Operating Procedure/Registration Policy. This provides
for the procedure for change of name of father as well as for correction of office
mistake on the CNIC. So far as, correction of office mistake is concerned, the
contention of the learned Legal Advisor for the respondent is that when a correction of
office mistake is required to be made, the application should be made to the
respondent within three months from issuance of CNIC. In this case the request for
correction of office mistake was not made within the stipulated time. Hence the
application cannot be entertained. Furthermore, he contends that for a change in
father's name a Court order is necessary. Since the petitioner sought change in his
father's name, hence a Court order was required.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on
the file.

6. The documents available on the record show that the petitioner was issued
National Identify Card on 22-1-1981, and his fathers name is printed as "Haji Chanan
Din". Copy of the petitioner's passport also shows that his fathers name is "Haji
Chanan Din". Application form for the computerized CNIC shows that he stated his
fathers name as "Haji Chanan Din" (deceased). His mother's CNIC card shows her
husbands name as "Haji Chanan Din" (deceased). The family numbers of both CNIC
cards, being that of the petitioner and of his mother are the same. Two facts are
apparent from a simple review of the aforementioned documents. First that the
petitioner was issued NIC in 1981, which states his father's name as "Haji Chanan
Din". Secondly, all the documents including the passport and application form state his
father's name as "Haji Chanan Din". This means that this cannot be a case of change of
name of the petitioner's father, it is clearly a typographic mistake while printing the
required details of the petitioner on the CNIC. Hence it is a case of correction of office
mistake on the CNIC of the petitioner.

7. Learned Legal Advisor for the respondent relied upon the terms of the
Standard Operating Procedure/Registration Policy. He argued that the respondent was
bound by the SOPs, which provides for a three month period for correction of office
mistake. Since the application was made in the year 2009 and the CNIC was issued in
the year 2002, the application of the petitioner was barred by time. Therefore, the
respondent cannot entertain the request/application of the petitioner. Essentially the
effect of the argument advanced by the learned Legal Advisor for the respondent is
that an apparent mistake in the data base of the respondent or on the CNIC of the
petitioner should continue. Meaning thereby, that the data and identity of the
petitioner is factually incorrect and should remain incorrect. This goes against the very
spirit of maintaining a national data base and issuing national identity cards. Hence,
there is no merit in the argument of the learned Legal Advisor for the respondent.

8. The National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000

(Ordinance) provides for the establishment of a national data base and for a
Registration Authority to facilitate the registration of all persons. The purpose, object,
functions and powers of the respondent are provided for in section 5. Section 10
provides for the issuance of national identity card to any citizen. Section 9(1) of the
Ordinance provides for the registration of all the citizen under the Ordinance and also
provides that citizens registered under the previous law, being the National
Registration Act, 1973 shall be deemed to be registered under
this Ordinance. Section 9(1) of the Ordinance is reproduced below:--

"(1) 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 the
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.

………………

Provided further that all such citizens who stand validly registered under any law
immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance shall be deemed to have
been registered under this Ordinance and their registration shall, subject to
sections 17, 18 and 30 remain valid till the expiry of two years from the
commencement of this Ordinance, or such time as may be notified by the Federal
Government, or till such time as such citizen is registered afresh as hereinafter
provided, whichever is earlier."

The aforementioned provisions provide that a national data base is to be maintained by

the respondent. This data base record maintains all the required data regarding a
citizen, thus establishing a data base or information base known as the citizen data
base. 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 the identification of a citizen. Its issuance means that the
information contained therein is valid and correct. Therefore, by not correcting an
error in its data base or on the CNIC the respondent is in fact going against the spirit
of the Ordinance and is not performing its primary function. It is also perpetuating a
wrong in its own data base, which negates the purpose of a national identity card. The
respondent is bound to maintain a correct data base and is bound to print the correct
information on the CNIC. Finally, since the petitioner was issued a national identity
card in 1981, and the said card states his father's name as "Haji Channan Din",
in view of section 9(1) he is deemed to be registered under the Ordinance and the
respondent is obligated to correct any error in its database or on the CNIC it issues to
a citizen.

9. On the issue of the SOPs and the argument that the respondent is bound by the
same, it is seen that the NADRA (NIC) Rules 2002, provide for in Rule 13 that:-

"For the incorporation of a change in the card, the Authority may, on an application
made in the appropriate form provided in the regulations and subject to surrender of
the original card, issue a new revised card incorporating the change.

Furthermore, the respondent under the Ordinance, 2000 enjoys enabling powers
under section 5(3):--

"The Authority may take such measures and exercise such powers and perform such
functions as it considers necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Ordinance.

10. The Standard Operating Procedure/Registration Policy relied upon are internal
instructions to enable the respondent to achieve optimum level of efficiency, and to
ensure consistency and uniformity in its procedure and process. The SOPs do not have
the force of law. Hence they are not binding on the respondent. At best it's an internal
document and cannot form the basis of denying the petitioner the right to have the
correct information maintained in the citizen data base and printed on the CNIC. The
SOPs also cannot form the basis for the respondent to refuse to correct an error in its
record because if the error is not corrected, it will negate the very purpose of issuing a
CNIC to a citizen. Furthermore, delay in filing an application for correction of an office
mistake cannot hamper or prevent the process of actually correcting the database or
the CNIC.

11. In view of the aforementioned, this petition is accepted, the respondent is

directed to treat the pending request of the petitioner as a correction of office mistake
and to correct his father's name, and issue a new CNIC with the correct particulars.
Compliance report shall be submitted to Deputy Registrar (Judl) of this Court.
12. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.