• Rules govt can limit trade with India, Israel on security, foreign policy grounds
• Declares ‘right to read’ fundamental to life under Constitution; warns curbs on knowledge risk intellectual, societal decline
• Notes digital access makes book bans increasingly ineffective
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) upheld the government decision regarding the ban on imports of books from certain countries based on national security and foreign policy grounds, while simultaneously affirming that a “right to read” is a fundamental right essential for life.
In a landmark decision, the court drew a careful line between a citizen’s fundamental right and the government’s broad authority over foreign trade and national security.
While the ruling strongly affirmed access to knowledge as a core constitutional liberty, it stopped short of striking down the government’s trade ban, preserving its power to block commerce with nations like India and Israel.
Headed by Justice Aamir Farooq, the three-judge bench, which also included Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and Justice Rozi Khan Barrech, set aside a Lahore High Court’s (LHC) specific directives to the government but upheld the substance of the import ban.
The FCC verdict, on an appeal filed by the commerce ministry against the January 2024 ruling of the LHC, was reserved on Jan 21.
Justice Farooq, in the judgment he authored, argued that the right to read was integral to a meaningful existence.
“This right bears an intrinsic nexus with life itself, remains anchored in our constitutional principles and is necessary for the preservation of our societal values,” he wrote.
“The right to read was embedded in our Constitution and for the meaningful fulfilment of the right to life under Article 9, it was essential that individuals were enabled to read and get educated.”
The controversy stemmed from Statutory Regulatory Orders (SROs Nos. 927 and 928(I)/2019), through which the federal government banned all imports from and exports to India and Israel, including law books and journals.
These SROs were challenged before the LHC, with petitioners arguing the ban was unlawful, or “ultra vires,” as it pertained to the import of books.
While the FCC overturned the specific directions issued by the LHC — which had instructed the federal government to appoint an officer to review the policy — the FCC explained that the government had acted within its executive authority.
Justice Farooq observed that the judiciary must respect the separation of powers, particularly in sensitive areas.
“Over the years, the courts have avoided interfering in matters pertaining to national security and foreign policy.
It is the exclusive prerogative of the government to determine with which countries it will establish trade relations,” he noted.
“If FCC is to direct that trade be conducted with one country and not another, it would breach the bounds of judicial authority and encroach upon the domain of the executive, in violation of Article 90 of the Constitution.”
Despite upholding the ban, the judgment extensively detailed the profound importance of access to knowledge.
Justice Farooq stated that restricting access to legal knowledge has consequences, suggesting that an uninformed society is vulnerable and easily misled.
He further emphasised that as law evolves, hindering access to legal texts or books threatens human intellect and national progress.
Justice Farooq linked the right to Pakistan’s constitutional and religious roots, highlighting the 1956 Constitution’s stress on education and the Quranic term “Iqra,” meaning “read”.
He stated that Islam, a religion of knowledge, encourages wisdom, which cannot be gained without reading.
In an additional note, Justice Najafi highlighted the practical challenges of banning books in the digital age, noting its limited effectiveness. He mentioned that professional knowledge is readily accessible online, often for free or nominal fees, making it difficult to justify a ban on law books that can easily be bypassed.
Justice Najafi also cautioned against the broad use of national security as a justification for restricting access to information.
“Certainly, patriotism and national security are the concepts of highest legal and moral grounds which can easily be used to prohibit anything into our country, but it should be applied with due care and caution so as to prepare a strong and intellectually competent nation to face the modern challenges,” he observed.
He concluded that knowledge fortifies society by challenging old ideas and reinforcing beliefs through critical analysis. “Knowledge frees minds that may be trapped by outdated ideas,” Justice Najafi said.
Published in Dawn, April 18th, 2026
from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/HG08YvO