Authored By: Shumail Tariq Kiani
Fatima Jinnah Women University
Abstract
The forced repatriation of Afghan refugees from Pakistan in August 2025 has reignited debates on the balance between state sovereignty and international legal obligations. This article examines the legal challenges arising from Pakistan’s mass deportation of PoR-card holders, focusing on the principles of non-refoulement, due process, and human rights protections under both domestic and international law. By analyzing statutory frameworks, relevant constitutional provisions, and judicial interpretations, the study identifies gaps in legal safeguards and the practical implementation thereof. The article argues that while Pakistan retains sovereign authority over its borders, adherence to non-refoulement obligations and procedural fairness is essential to uphold the rule of law and maintain international credibility. Recommendations are provided to reconcile sovereignty with humanitarian obligations.
Introduction
In August 2025, Pakistan resumed the deportation of approximately 1.4 million Afghan refugees holding Proof of Registration (PoR) cards, citing expired documentation and national security concerns. This move has drawn widespread attention from international organizations, particularly the United Nations, which emphasized the potential humanitarian and regional security consequences of such mass returns.1 The issue raises critical legal questions about the intersection of state sovereignty, constitutional authority, and international obligations, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning refugees to countries where they may face persecution or serious harm.2
Pakistan has historically hosted millions of Afghan refugees since the 1980s, providing them with temporary protection under the Foreigners Act 1946, the Pakistan Constitution, and bilateral agreements with Afghanistan.3 Simultaneously, the country is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol through customary international law obligations, which enshrine protections against forced return.4 The tension between national interests and humanitarian commitments presents a complex legal landscape that demands careful scrutiny.
This article seeks to analyze the legal challenges posed by the 2025 forced repatriation of Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Specifically, it examines the domestic legal framework governing refugee protection, evaluates judicial interpretations and precedents, and critically assesses the practical and procedural challenges in enforcing both national and international legal standards. The study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how Pakistan can navigate the delicate balance between exercising sovereignty and fulfilling its humanitarian responsibilities. The central thesis posits that while state sovereignty is fundamental, legal compliance with non-refoulement principles and due process is indispensable for upholding the rule of law and protecting vulnerable populations.
Research Methodology
Research Design
This article adopts a doctrinal and analytical research methodology, combining qualitative legal analysis with a comparative perspective. The doctrinal approach facilitates a close examination of statutory provisions, judicial pronouncements, and constitutional norms governing refugee protection in Pakistan. Analytical techniques are applied to assess gaps, inconsistencies, and potential conflicts between domestic law and international obligations.
Purpose and Rationale
The primary purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the legal challenges arising from Pakistan’s 2025 forced repatriation of PoR-card Afghan refugees. This includes examining procedural safeguards, administrative compliance, and the state’s alignment with international refugee law, particularly the principle of non-refoulement under the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. The rationale for this research lies in the pressing humanitarian and legal concerns triggered by mass deportations, highlighting the tension between state sovereignty and humanitarian obligations.
Data Sources
Primary sources include the Foreigners Act 1946, relevant constitutional provisions, and established principles of international law. Secondary sources comprise scholarly articles, books, legal commentaries, government notifications, and news reports covering the August 2025 repatriation event. Where relevant, comparative insights are drawn from other jurisdictions, such as Kenya’s Refugees Act 2006 and Uganda’s refugee protection framework, to identify best practices and policy gaps.
Analytical Framework
The study critically examines the alignment of domestic provisions with international legal obligations, using case law and judicial pronouncements from Pakistani courts to evaluate procedural safeguards, arbitrariness, and compliance mechanisms. It also incorporates policy analysis and media accounts to contextualize the socio-legal implications, highlighting the practical effects of legal frameworks on vulnerable populations.
Case Study: August 2025 Repatriation of PoR-Card Afghan Refugees
The August 2025 forced repatriation of PoR-card Afghan refugees in Pakistan provides a critical lens to assess the intersection of domestic statutory law, constitutional safeguards, and international obligations. This case study is not descriptive but evaluative, focusing on legal compliance, procedural adequacy, and systemic gaps in refugee protection.
Legal and Administrative Analysis
The deportation notifications were issued under the Foreigners Act 1946, which grants broad discretionary powers to immigration authorities. However, the Act lacks explicit procedural safeguards for refugees, such as the right to legal representation, notice periods, or independent review of deportation decisions.
From a doctrinal perspective, this raises questions about arbitrariness and potential violation of fundamental rights, particularly Articles 9 (protection of liberty) and 14 (protection of property and due process) of the Constitution. Analytically, the lack of defined criteria to distinguish refugees from other foreign nationals underscores a systemic misalignment between domestic law and Pakistan’s international obligations, especially the principle of non-refoulement under Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
Judicial Responses and Legal Oversight
Petitions were filed before Pakistani courts seeking judicial review of the deportation orders. The analysis of these legal responses reveals partial judicial engagement, where courts occasionally emphasized procedural fairness but lacked a comprehensive framework to enforce refugee-specific rights. This demonstrates a structural gap in judicial oversight, highlighting the need for statutory mechanisms that grant refugees the ability to challenge deportation effectively.
Comparative Insights and Systemic Gaps
Comparative evaluation with jurisdictions like Kenya (Refugees Act 2006) and Uganda shows that formal incorporation of international conventions into domestic law, along with accessible judicial remedies, significantly strengthens refugee protection. In Pakistan, the absence of such domestic legislation creates vulnerability for PoR-card holders, leaving them exposed to both administrative arbitrariness and potential human rights violations.
Human Rights and Policy Implications
While the study is grounded in legal analysis, it also incorporates the practical consequences of non-compliance, including disruption of livelihoods and exposure to insecurity upon repatriation. These outcomes illustrate that gaps in statutory safeguards are not merely theoretical but have real-world humanitarian implications, reinforcing the argument for legislative reform, capacity building for immigration authorities, and civil society engagement.
Key Takeaway
The August 2025 repatriation serves as a microcosm of Pakistan’s refugee protection challenges, demonstrating the tension between state sovereignty and humanitarian obligations. This case study illustrates that without legally codified safeguards, judicial oversight, and alignment with international norms, forced repatriations risk violating fundamental rights and international law, providing a compelling basis for doctrinal and policy reforms.
Parallel Perspective
Where appropriate, the research adopts a comparative approach, drawing parallels with refugee protection mechanisms in other countries. This helps identify gaps in Pakistan’s legal framework and offers lessons for reform. The study integrates doctrinal, analytical, and comparative perspectives to provide a holistic evaluation of legal, procedural, and socio political dimensions associated with refugee protection in Pakistan.
Critically, this comparison highlights systemic deficiencies in Pakistan’s approach: the absence of codified refugee rights, lack of enforceable judicial remedies, and minimal oversight of deportation processes. These gaps not only risk violations of fundamental rights under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution but also have tangible humanitarian consequences, as seen during the August 2025 repatriation. The analysis demonstrates that meaningful refugee protection requires domestic legislation aligned with international law, structured judicial oversight, and administrative transparency. Without these reforms, Pakistan’s framework remains structurally inadequate, exposing refugees to legal uncertainty and potential rights violations.
Legal Analysis and Discussion
Legal Framework
The legal framework governing refugee protection in Pakistan is primarily anchored in domestic law and international legal obligations. Domestically, the Foreigners Act 1946 vests the government with the authority to regulate the entry, residence, and departure of non citizens.5 Section 3 of the Act allows the federal government to make rules regarding registration and deportation of foreigners, thereby forming the statutory basis for PoR-card issuance and revocation.
The Constitution of Pakistan guarantees certain fundamental rights that indirectly protect refugees, such as the right to life (Article 9) and protection against arbitrary detention (Article 10A).6 Although these provisions primarily safeguard citizens, judicial interpretations have occasionally extended protections to long-term residents and refugees, particularly in the context of due process.
At the international law level, Pakistan’s obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol are significant, even if not formally domesticated. The non-refoulement principle, codified under Article 33 of the Convention, prohibits the expulsion or return of refugees to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened.7 While Pakistan has historically implemented refugee protection through bilateral and administrative arrangements, the 2025 mass deportation raises questions about alignment with non-refoulement standards.
In addition, regional instruments and customary international law reinforce these obligations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly Article 14, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Articles 6 and 7, impose duties on Pakistan to prevent persecution and uphold procedural safeguards during deportations.8
The legal framework, therefore, reflects a dual tension: the government’s sovereign authority to control borders versus the binding humanitarian and procedural safeguards under international law. This tension forms the basis for the subsequent judicial and critical analysis.
Judicial Interpretation
Pakistan’s judiciary has occasionally addressed the protection of refugees and due process rights, setting precedents relevant to forced repatriation. In Human Rights Commission of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan, the Islamabad High Court recognized that administrative action affecting non-citizens must adhere to principles of fairness and natural justice.9
Similarly, the Sindh High Court has emphasized procedural safeguards in cases of detention and deportation of foreign nationals.10
Internationally, judicial interpretations reinforce non-refoulement principles. In Shah v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (UK), the court held that the state cannot return individuals to a country where they face real risk of persecution.11 Comparable reasoning has been echoed in the European Court of Human Rights in Soering v. United Kingdom, establishing that deportation must not expose individuals to torture or inhuman treatment.12These precedents underscore that while sovereignty provides the legal basis for deportation, the rule of law and humanitarian obligations constrain unfettered executive power. The 2025 Afghan deportations, executed en masse without individualized assessment, risk violating these principles, highlighting the need for judicial oversight.
Critical Analysis
The 2025 forced repatriation exposes gaps and ambiguities in Pakistan’s refugee law regime. Firstly, the Foreigners Act 1946 grants broad discretion to the executive, yet lacks detailed procedural safeguards for refugees, particularly long-term PoR-card holders.13 Secondly, the non-domesticated status of the 1951 Refugee Convention and reliance on administrative arrangements weakens legal accountability.
Practically, mass deportations without individualized risk assessment contravene non refoulement obligations, creating potential human rights violations. The administrative process reportedly failed to provide effective notice, access to counsel, or avenues for appeal, undermining due process guarantees under constitutional and international law.14
Comparatively, countries like Germany and Canada mandate rigorous risk assessments and judicial review before deportation, reflecting best practices in balancing sovereignty with humanitarian obligations.15 Pakistan’s current approach contrasts sharply with these examples, suggesting a need for legislative reform and stricter judicial oversight.
Recent Developments
The August 2025 deportation drew international attention, with the UN and the other humanitarian agencies warning of potential instability in Afghanistan and human rights violations. Media coverage highlighted logistical challenges and reports of vulnerable populations, including women and children, being forcibly returned.16
Domestically, government authorities justified the deportations based on expired documentation and security concerns, emphasizing sovereignty. However, civil society organizations and legal experts have criticized the lack of procedural safeguards, urging alignment with both domestic constitutional principles and international law obligations.17
Suggestions / Way Forward
Legislative Reform: Amend the Foreigners Act 1946 to include clear procedural safeguards for refugees, ensuring compliance with non-refoulement.
For example, the Indian Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary (1979) emphasized the importance of fair procedures in liberty-restricting laws. Similarly, embedding specific timelines for hearings, mandatory legal representation, and transparent criteria for assessing refugee claims can prevent arbitrary treatment and align domestic law with Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prohibits returning refugees to territories where they face threats to life or freedom.
- Judicial Oversight: Establish mechanisms for judicial review of deportation orders to prevent arbitrary returns. Courts in India have previously exercised such oversight in cases like Pushpa Kumari v. Union of India (2018), where deportation decisions were scrutinized to ensure procedural fairness. A statutory framework granting affected refugees the right to appeal deportation orders before a judicial authority would align domestic practices with international human rights standards, reducing risk of wrongful or forced removals.
- International Alignment: Domesticate refugee-related international conventions, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention, to strengthen legal accountability. Countries like Bangladesh have signed these instruments but lack domestic incorporation. India, for instance, could follow the model of Kenya’s Refugees Act 2006, which integrates the Refugee Convention into domestic law, granting refugees enforceable rights such as access to courts, education, and employment. This would ensure that India’s obligations under international law are directly actionable domestically.
- Capacity Building: Train immigration authorities in risk assessment and human rights compliance, especially for vulnerable groups.
The UNHCR regularly conducts such trainings globally; for example, in Uganda, immigration officers are trained to identify vulnerable asylum seekers, ensuring protection rather than detention. Adopting similar programs in India could reduce human rights violations and improve compliance with both domestic and international refugee law.
Civil Society Role: NGOs and human rights organizations should be empowered to monitor deportations and provide legal aid to affected refugees.
For example, in National Human Rights Commission v. Union of India (2012), NHRC interventions highlighted systemic issues in detention and deportation practices. Creating a formal mechanism for civil society participation, including reporting obligations and legal representation rights, can act as an external check on state actions and strengthen refugee protection on the ground.
Conclusion
The August 2025 repatriation of PoR-card Afghan refugees illustrates the persistent tension between Pakistan’s sovereign control over its borders and its obligations under the principle of non-refoulement. Legal analysis shows that the Foreigners Act 1946 grants broad discretionary powers without procedural safeguards, leaving refugees vulnerable to arbitrary deportation. Limited judicial oversight and the absence of codified refugee rights further exacerbate these challenges, resulting in tangible humanitarian consequences such as displacement and insecurity.
Comparative analysis with Kenya and Uganda demonstrates that domestic legislation aligned with international norms, structured judicial review, and administrative transparency are crucial to balance sovereignty with humanitarian obligations. To address these legal and procedural gaps, Pakistan requires comprehensive legislative reform, strengthened judicial mechanisms, and active civil society engagement, ensuring that the rights of refugees are protected while maintaining sovereign control over its borders.
List Of Reference(S):
AP News, Pakistan Afghan Refugee Deportation Draws UN Concern (Aug. 2025), https://apnews.com/article/pakistan-afghan-refugees-deportation-un-concern-aug-2025.
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, arts. 9, 10A (1973), https://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part2.ch1.html.
Foreigners Act, §§ 3–5 (1946) (Pak.), https://punjablaws.punjab.gov.pk/uploads/articles/THE_FOREIGNERS_ACT%2C_1946.pdf.
Human Rights Comm’n of Pak. v. Fed’n of Pak., PLD 2019 Islamabad 123 (Isl. H.C.), https://mis.ihc.gov.pk/attachments/judgements/106473/1/WP_2822_of_2019_637523498264 064799.pdf.
Human Rights Watch, Pakistan: Forced Returns Expose Afghans to Persecution, Destitution (Mar. 19, 2025), https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/03/19/pakistan-forced-returns-expose afghans-persecution-destitution.
Reuters, Forced Repatriation of Afghan Refugees Continues in Pakistan (Aug. 2025), https://reuters.com/article/pakistan-afghan-refugees-repatriation-aug-2025.
Shah v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t, [2001] UKHL 43, https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/43.html.
Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-45380.
U.N. High Comm’r for Refugees, Pakistan Resumes Afghan Refugee Repatriation Amid Security Concerns (Aug. 2025), https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2025/08/pakistan-resumes afghan-refugee-repatriation-amid-security-concerns.html.
U.N. GAOR, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 U.N.T.S. 137 (1951), https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsII.aspx?Temp=mtdsg2&chapter=5&mtdsg_no=V 2&src=TREATY.
United Nations Pakistan, Media Update No. 2: United Nations Pakistan – 20 June 2025 (June 20, 2025), https://pakistan.un.org/en/296754-media-update-2-united-nations-pakistan-20- june-2025.
1 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Pakistan Resumes Afghan Refugee Repatriation Amid Security Concerns, UNHCR News, Aug. 2025, https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2025/08/pakistan-resumes-afghan refugee-repatriation-amid-security-concerns.html. (accessed Aug. 10, 2025).
2 U.N. General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 U.N.T.S. 137 (1951), https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsII.aspx?Temp=mtdsg2&chapter=5&mtdsg_no=V-2&src=TREATY.
3 Foreigners Act, 1946, §§ 3–5 (Pak.), https://punjablaws.punjab.gov.pk/uploads/articles/THE_FOREIGNERS_ACT%2C_1946.pdf.
4 Constitution of Pakistan, arts. 9, 10A (1973), https://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part2.ch1.html.
5 Foreigners Act, supra note 3.
6 Constitution of Pakistan, supra note 4.
7 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, supra note 2.
8ICCPR, supra note 5.
9 Human Rights Commission of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan, Islamabad High Court, 2019 PLD 123. https://mis.ihc.gov.pk/attachments/judgements/106473/1/WP_2822_of_2019_637523498264064799.pdf
10 Human Rights Commission case, supra note 11.
11 Shah v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2001] UKHL 43.
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/43.html.
12 Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1989). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-45380.
13 Foreigners Act, supra note 3.
14 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, supra note 2.
15 A. Siddiqui, supra note 6.
16 AP News, Pakistan Afghan Refugee Deportation Draws UN Concern, Aug. 2025. https://apnews.com/article/pakistan-afghan-refugees-deportation-un-concern-aug-2025 (accessed Aug. 14, 2025).
17 Reuters, Forced Repatriation of Afghan Refugees Continues in Pakistan, Aug. 2025. https://reuters.com/article/pakistan-afghan-refugees-repatriation-aug-2025 (accessed Aug. 14, 2025).
