P L D 2025 Sindh 307 (PLP)

ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN, J.

Applicant has preferred this revision application under the provision of 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P.C.") against the concurrent findings of the learned lower fora. Chronologically, a Civil Suit bearing No. 78 of 2018 was filed by the respondent No.1 Amar Parkash which was decreed vide Judgment dated 18.06.2019 and Decree dated 20.06.2019 and the same was impugned by the applicant before the learned First Appellate Forum i.e. Additional District Judge-IV Khairpur by filing Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2021 which was dismissed vide Judgment dated 31.03.2021 and decree dated 02.04.2021, hence the applicant before this court against the concurrent findings.

2. Precise facts of the case at hand are that Amar Parkash filed a Suit No. 78 of 2018 for Declaration, Permanent, Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction before the learned Senior Civil Judge-III Khairpur praying therein for correction of his date of birth as 28.02.1993 instead of 18.04.1989 which suit was decreed after emonstrable appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court Judgment dated 18.06.2019 and Decree dated 20.06.2019. The applicant aggrieved of the decision of the learned trial Court filed a Civil Appeal No.29 of 2021 before the learned Additional District Judge-IV Khairpur which appeal was also dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was maintained, hence the applicant is before this court under revisional jurisdiction against the concurrent findings of the lower fora.

3. The crux of submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was condemned unheard before the learned trial Court as no right of audience was ever afforded to the applicant to present its stance before the learned trial Court. He next contended that the respondent No.1 is an adoptee and under the provisions of NADRA Ordinance, 2001, the respondent No.1 is required to provide correct and complete information. Per learned counsel, the respondent No.1 failed to provide the antecedents as well as name of his mother, therefore, the computerized system of the applicant is not accepting the info provided by the applicant, therefore, the respondent No.1 was kept away from holding a CNIC card. He lastly contended that a person who is keen to acquire and possess a CNIC or NIC is required to provide information sought by the applicant/NADRA and fulfill all such requirements, whereafter, the CNIC is issued but here in this case, the respondent No.1 neither provided complete information regarding his parentage nor fulfilled the requisites of the applicant/NADRA and these aspects were ignored by the learned lower fora and passed the concurrent findings against the applicant, therefore, intervention by this Court is required.

4. In contrast, Mr. Mukesh Kumar G. Kara, advocated the case of the respondent No.1 stating that it is the irony on part of the applicant to halt CNIC of the respondent No.1 which card was previously issued to him by the applicant bearing CNIC No.45204-2003879-1. He further contended that the respondent No.1 is an adoptee child, adopted by one Harri Parkash alias Bhagwandas who was an unmarried man as well as a Gadeesar (priesthood) of Hindu Darbar (a worship place of hindu communities) with the name of Rangi Ram Darbar. He further contended that under the customs of Hindu Religion a child can be adopted by any adult who would be his/her real son as well as entitled for all benefits and not issuing the CNIC by the applicant to the respondent is against the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution as well as spirit of NADRA Ordinance, 2000. While concluding his submissions, he contended that NADRA/applicant be directed to issue CNIC of the applicant with correct date of birth as well as correct name side by side directions be also issued to the legislatures and Law Department to formulate Law of Adoption for Non-Muslims (Hindu) so that the minorities under whose customs the adoption are allowed, be benefited and would not face any problem in future.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also scanned the available record. In order to examine whether in the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court complete and substantial justice has been afforded or not. I have scrutinized the precision and meticulousness of the judgments and decrees of the learned Trial and Appellate Courts with a fair opportunity of audience to the learned counsel for the applicant to satisfy me as to what illegality, perversity or irregularity was committed by the aforesaid Courts in their respective judgments and decrees.

6. The jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 115, C.P.C. is to satisfy and reassure that the order is within its jurisdiction; the case is not one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and, in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally or in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity or by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which affected the ultimate decision. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is restricted to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have material effect on the result of the case or if the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or conflicting to the law. In the case of Atiq-ur-Rehman v. Muhammad Amin (PLD 2006 SC 309), the Apex Court held that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is confined to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have a material effect on the result of the case or the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or contrary to the law, but interference for the mere fact that the appraisal of evidence may suggest another view of the matter is not possible in revisional jurisdiction. There is a difference between the misreading, non-reading and misappreciation of evidence, therefore, the scope of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be confused and care must be taken for interference in revisional jurisdiction only in the cases in which the order passed or a judgment rendered by a subordinate Court is found perverse or suffering from a jurisdictional error or the defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence and the conclusion drawn is contrary to law.

7. It seems that the case of the respondent No.1 was thoroughly examined by the learned trial Court. The respondent No.1 during the course of his examination-in-chief adduced several material documents showing his date of birth to be as 28.02.1993 instead of 18.04.1989 and later was incorporated by the applicant in its record. The respondent No.1 had also produced a certificate issued by the Medical Board (constituted under the NADRA directives) who also opined (having examined the respondent No.1) favouring the respondent No.1, thereafter, the learned trial court having examined all aspects of the lis decreed the suit filed by the respondent No.1. The learned First Appellate Court is mandated under the law to reappraise and re-evaluate the judgments and orders passed by the lower forum in order to examine whether any error has been committed by the lower court on the facts and/or law, and it also requires the appreciation of evidence led by the parties for applying its weightage in the final verdict. It is the province of the Appellate Court to re-weigh the evidence or make an attempt to judge the credibility of witnesses. The learned Appellate Court having examined the entire record and proceedings made available reached to the conclusion which is worth reproducting here:- "Perusal of record shows that the plaintiff (respondent No.1 Amar Parkash) was referred to the medical board by NADRA for determination of his real age, who appeared before the medical board and medical board opined/determined his age to be 23/24 years such certificate of medical board, wherein his age was shown/determined as 23/24 years was produced by the plaintiff (respondent No.1) before the learned trial Court, which supported and proved the versions of plaintiff (respondent No.1) in respect of his claim. Furthermore, the evidence of the plaintiff was not rebutted by defendants (now appellants) side. Moreover, In the above scenario, It appears that the plaintiff's (respondent No.1) actual date of birth is 28.02.1993. So far as the usage of CNIC and passport with wrong date of birth by the plaintiff (respondent No.1) Is concerned, the learned trial Court has already Imposed cost of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) ulpon the plaintiff and same has been paid/deposited by the respondent No. 1 with the learned trial Court, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in paragraph No. 10 of his written arguments. So far as the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellants that they were not given opportunity to file their written statement, perusal of Judgment of learned trial Court reveals that after issuance of summons, the appellant/defendants failed to file their written statement(s) and they were debarred from filing written statements and ultimately were made exparte by the learned trial Court, hence, such plea is of no help to the appellants. The learned trial Court has not erred while decreeing the suit of plaintiff (respondent No.1), hence, Impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court do not require any Interference by this Court. Accordingly, the point No.1 is replied in negative."

8. It is gleaned from appraisal of the foregoing that the respondent No.1 produced tangible evidence with respect to his correct date of birth which aspect was also examined by the learned trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court.

9. It is trite law1 that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been Judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law. It is the considered view of this court that no manifest illegality has been identified in the orders impugned and further that no defect has been pointed out in so far as the exercise of jurisdiction is concerned of the subordinate fora. In view of foregoing, the present revision application appears to be devoid of merit.

10. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of this case, it also appears that the Applicant has no case on merits as well as in law. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Application was disposed of vide short order dated 02.06.2023 and it was delineated in the short order that the aspect of mentioning the name of adopted father in the CNIC of adoptee child (hindu religion) will be discussed in the reasonings, however, there is a separate provenance for giving directions to the NADRA with respect to framing of Rules relating to the adopted child but nonetheless, in order to save the ends of justice and to save the unnecessary litigation in this regard, the above aspect is discussed in this determination.

11. Before parting with the above, it is considered expedient to illustrate here that the respondent No.1 as well as applicant both are aggrieved in the manner that the applicant's computerized system is not accepting the information provided by the respondent No.1 as the respondent No.1 who is an adoptee is unable to give the name of his biological father and persistent on a point that he being a Hindu is entitled to get the CNIC under the name and parentage of his adoptee father instead of his biological father/mother, the anxiety of the applicant is that their computerized system is not accepting the stance of the respondent No.1 as the computerized proforma is to be filled in every head and that the respondent No.1 is not providing the name of his mother(which he does not have).

12. In our neighboring country i.e. India an Statue was promulgated with the name of "The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956" with the object to amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus. The said Act allows a single male Hindu, irrespective of his marital status, to adopt a child. In the said enactment, the eligibility criteria to adopt a child, consent from the biological parents, adoption procedure and formalities were also discussed and it is considered prudent to reproduce the crux of necessary constituent hereof as under:- Eligibility: To adopt a child, the single male adoptive father must meet certain eligibility criteria. This includes being of sound mind, having attained the age of majority, and not having a living wife at the time of adoption. Consent: Adoption requires the consent of the biological parents, legal guardian, or the child's custodian, depending on the circumstances. If the child is abandoned or orphaned, the consent requirements may vary. Adoption Procedure: The adoption process involves filing an application with the concerned adoption authorities or agencies. This typically includes submitting necessary documents, such as proof of identity, address, and income, as well as undergoing a home study and background checks. Legal Formalities: Once the adoption is approved, legal formalities like executing adoption deeds and obtaining an adoption order from the court may be required to establish the legal relationship between the adoptive father and the child.

13. In Pakistan, for the registration of persons an enactment was promulgated with the name of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 and according to its preamble the Ordinance was to provide for the establishment of the National Database and Registration Authority so as to facilitate the registration of all persons and the establishment and maintenance of multipurpose databases, data warehouses, networking, interfacing of databases and related facilities. The Ordinance, 2000 was promulgated to register all persons, however, the Law admittedly fails to register an adopted person belonging to Hindu community or minorities, whereas, per prescriptions of Section 9 of the Ordinance, 2000 every citizen who has attained the age of 18 years is to be registered under the said Ordinance.

14. It is claimed by the respondent No.1 that the applicant/NADRA had handed him out the CNIC bearing No.45204-2003879-1 but as soon as he found an error in his date of birth, he applied for correction thereof and having completed the necessary formalities, the respondent No.1 was not issuing correct CNIC to him.

15. Section 18 of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2020 depicts and characterizes the powers to cancel, impound or confiscate cards. For the ease of reference, Section 18 of the aforesaid Ordinance is reproduced as under: "

18. Power to cancel, impound or confiscate cards.

(1) A card issued under this Ordinance shall be the property of the Federal Government and may, by an order in writing under the seal of the Authority or an officer authorised by it in this behalf, be required to be returned and shall also be liable to be cancelled, impounded or confiscated by a like order: Provided that no order shall be made unless such person has been given notice in writing calling upon him to show cause why the order should not be made. (2) An order under subsection (1) cancelling, impounding or confiscating a card may be made only if there is reason to believe that- (a) the card has been obtained by a person who is not eligible to hold such card, by posing himself as eligible; (b) more than one cards have been obtained by the same person on the same eligibility criteria; (c) the particulars shown on the card have been obliterated or tampered with; or (d) the card is forged. (3) Any person in respect of whose card an order under subsection (1) has been made may, within thirty days of the order, appeal to the Federal Government against the order and the decision of the Federal Government in appeal shall be final: Provided that no order on such appeal shall be passed unless the appellant has been given an opportunity of being heard."

16. The letters of the law made it clear that the CNIC may be cancelled, impounded or confiscated only if there is a reason to believe that the card has been obtained by a person who was not eligible; duplication of card obtained by a same person; the particulars shown on the card have been obliterated or tampered with; or the card was forged. In the aftermath of cancellation, impounding or confiscation, an appeal may be filed within 30 days to the Federal Government. According to Section 18, any drastic and punitive action can only be taken if there is a reason behind. The solemnity and minutiae of this provision unequivocally demonstrates that the application of this section can only be exercised by the authority if they have some reasons to believe that the card was obtained in violation of conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Subsection (2) of Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance. This cannot be put into effect as a routine exercise every time if a person applies for the renewal of his CNIC on the basis of his previous credentials or antecedents showing requisite and proper documents already in his custody to show his national status which is quite sufficient for the satisfaction of the authority but instead of examining those documents that were issued earlier to the said person, NADRA started inquiry without any cogent and substantive reason. This is not the region or raison d' tre under the law that in each and every case Section 18 should be invoked or resorted to by the authority for questioning the authenticity and genuineness of manual NIC or the earlier CNIC issued by the same department to the person who only applied for the renewal of his CNIC and nothing else. The purpose of establishing National Database and Registration Authority under the 2000 Ordinance was to provide for the registration of all persons and for the establishment and maintenance of multipurpose databases, data warehouses, networking, interfacing of databases and related facilities and services with the whole objective that a new, improved and modernized registration and database system is the emergent need of time for its multiple beneficial uses and applications in efficiently and effectively running the affairs of the State and the general public for achieving the goals of good governance, public service and minimizing scope of corruption and inefficiency, but policing is definitely not NADRA's job.

18. Even though, the nitty-gritties of Section 18 explicate the power to cancel, impound or confiscate the card as an eventual punitive action but no powers are integrated or en suite to block the CNIC of any person unless it is finally determined or adjudicated that the card issued to any such person should be cancelled, impounded or confiscated. Before deciding the fate of show cause notices, there is no provision under the NADRA Ordinance to block CNIC. Any such action beyond the scope of law makes a person non-existent. Due to non-possessing of CNIC the respondent No.1 is unable to operate his bank account which is much painful and troublesome. Nothing has been said by NADRA that the respondent No.1 is an alien or his CNIC hasn't been handed out under suspicious circumstances, or the card was issued through unverified data. Despite showing all available record, NADRA is still reluctant to issue CNIC but ironically the genuineness or authenticity of documents presented by the respondent No.1 have not been questioned with the allegation that the same are forged or manipulated hence not acceptable. The question arises that at this point in time what is the status of the respondent No.1? Whether in this transitional or intermediary period he has lost his citizenship of the country and what would be the impending course of action in such case if the card is cancelled, impounded or confiscated? Whether any such person will be deported to somewhere else or he may be allowed to live in Pakistan with the right to apply for citizenship afresh? Nothing was answered by the counsel for the NADRA/applicant to this effect when the query was raised to him. In fact the deprivation of citizenship is provided under Section 16 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. For the ease of reference, Section 16 is reproduced as under: "

16. Deprivation of citizenship. (1) a citizen of Pakistan shall cease to be a citizen of Pakistan if he is deprived of that citizenship by an order under the next following subsections. (2) Subject to the provisions of this section the Federal Government may by order deprive any such citizen of his citizenship if it is satisfied that he obtained his certificate of domicile or certificate of naturalization [under the Naturalization Act, 1926 (VII of 1926)] by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact, or if his certificate of naturalization is revoked. (3) Subject to the provisions of this section the Federal Government may by order deprive any person who is a citizen of Pakistan by naturalization of his citizenship of Pakistan if it is satisfied that that citizen- (a) has shown himself by any act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected to the Constitution of Pakistan; or (b) has, during a war in which Pakistan is or has been engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy or engaged in or associated with any business that was to his knowledge carried on in such a manner as to assist the enemy in that war; or (c) has within five years of being naturalized been sentenced in any country to Imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months. (4) The Federal Government may on an application being made or on its own motion by order deprive any citizen of Pakistan of his citizenship if it is satisfied that he has been ordinarily resident in a country outside Pakistan for a continuous period of seven years beginning not earlier than the commencement of this Act and during that period has neither- (i) been at any time in the service of any Government in Pakistan or of an International Organization of which Pakistan has, at any time during that period been a member; or (ii) registered annually in the prescribed manner at a Pakistan Consulate or Mission or in a country where there is no Pakistan Consulate or Mission at the Prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Pakistan Consulate or Mission in a country to the country of his residence his intention to retain Pakistan citizenship. (5) The Federal Government shall not make an order depriving a person of citizenship under this section unless it is satisfied that it Is in the public interest that the person should not continue to be a citizen of Pakistan. (6) Before making an order under this section the Federal Government shall give the person against whom it is proposed to make the order notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to make the order and calling upon him to show cause why it should not be made. (7) If It is proposed to make the order on any of the grounds specified in subsections (2) and (3) of this section and the person against whom. It is proposed to make the order applies in the prescribed manner for an inquiry, the Federal Government shall, and in any other case may, refer the case to a Committee of inquiry consisting of a Chairman, being a person possessing judicial experience, appointed by the Federal Government and of such other members appointed by the Federal Government as it thinks proper."

19. According to the aforesaid section, the Federal Government may by order deprive any such citizen of his citizenship if it is satisfied that he obtained his certificate of domicile or certificate of naturalization under the Naturalization Act, 1926 by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact. It is further provided under Subsection (5) that the Federal Government shall not make an order depriving a person of citizenship unless it is satisfied that it is in the public interest that the person should not continue to be a citizen of Pakistan, whereas Subsection (6) further provides that before making any such order the Federal Government shall issue a show cause notice to such person informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to make the order. Whereas under Section 17 of the same Act the Federal Government grants a certificate of domicile to any person in respect of whom it is satisfied that he has ordinarily resided in Pakistan for a period of not less than one year immediately before making an application and has acquired a domicile therein. The issuance of domicile certificate under Section 17 of Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 read with Rule 23 of Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952 makes it evident that a particular person is domiciled in Pakistan. In the case of Mehmood ul Hassan Khan v. Dow University of Health Sciences (PLD 2008 Karachi 49), the learned Division Bench of this court while dilating upon the dictum laid down in the case of Joan Marg Carter v. Albert William Carter (PLD 1961 SC 616); Mehr-un-Nisa Baloch v. Appellate Committee (PLD 1978 Kar. 214); Muhammad Yar Khan v. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Political Agent Loralai (1980 SCMR 456) and Ziaullah v. District Magistrate Nawabshah (2000 CLC 406) held that expression "domicile" would reflect a person's status as a citizen of a particular state or country, whereas expression "permanent residence" might be a pure question of fact as to his residence in a particular area.

20. According to Section 3 of the Passport Act, 1974, no citizen of Pakistan shall depart from Pakistan by any means whatever unless he is in possession of passport or visit a foreign country unless his passport is valid for such country. At the same time power to cancel, impound or confiscate passport is provided under Section 8 of the same Act which provides that the passport shall be the property of Federal Government and the same may be cancelled, impounded or confiscated by an order under the head of Secretary to Government of Pakistan or an authorized officer of the Federal Government, however, under Subsection (2) it is provided that before making an order the Federal Government shall give such person notice in writing calling upon him to show cause why the order should not be made, however, if the Federal Government has reason to believe that a person has been engaged in subversive or in activities which are prejudicial to the interest of Pakistan or to Pakistan's relations with any foreign power, no show cause notice will be required to be issued in the above situation.

21. Corresponding to definition provided in clause (e) of Section 2 of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, citizen means a person who is, or is deemed to be a citizen of Pakistan, under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 and in clause (k) National Identity Card means a card issued under subsection (1) of section 14 and, where the context so admits, includes an identity card issued under the National Registration Act, 1973. (old law). Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 was promulgated to make provisions for citizens of Pakistan, whereas National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance 2000 was premeditated to provide for the registration of persons and establishment and maintenance of multipurpose databases, data warehouses, networking, interfacing of databases and related facilities. Section 46 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 puts forward that the Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. What is extremely dominant and assertive to ruminate or mull over that Citizenship Act as well as the NADRA Ordinance both are special laws relating to the special subjects. The Citizenship Act pertains to the grant of citizenship of Pakistan, whereas the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 relates to the registration of persons and issuing of national identity cards according to their domain and mandate. Since both are the special laws, therefore, according to basic principle of interpretation, one special law cannot override the provisions of another special law when particularly both are governing two different aspects. The citizenship of any person cannot be confiscated and for that a particular provision is already provided under the law to deal the matter of confiscation for deprivation of citizenship under Section 16 of the Citizenship Act, 1951.

22. Even so, the powers and functions for issuing cards are provided under Section 14 of the NADRA Ordinance by which the authority is required to take such measures, exercise such powers and perform such functions as it considers necessary, expedient, incidental or consequential for or to the issuance and renewal of the cards provided for in Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 (National Identity Cards Section 10, Pakistan Origin Cards Section 11, Overseas Identity Cards Section 12, Alien Registration Cards Section 13). According to Rule 3 of the National Database and Registration Authority (National Identity Card) Rules, 2002 a citizen shall be a resident citizen if he is not a non-resident citizen, whereas according to Rule 4 a non-resident citizen means a citizen shall be a non-resident citizen if he (a) is an emigrant or intending emigrant; (b) is, or is intending to be, resident abroad; (c) holds nationality or citizenship of any other country or state pursuant to sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951; or (d) holds an emigrant or resident visa, permanent or otherwise, or equivalent authorization, permit or status, as the case may be, of a foreign State or country.

23. I have scanned the law but remained unable to find out any provisions under which NADRA is authorized or vested with any powers to not to register an adoptee. Here help from Section 47 of the NADRA Ordinance 2000 could be taken which deals with removal of difficulties.

24. Per respondent No.1's counsel, the respondent No.1 is an adoptee as well as priesthood of Hindu Community and his rights are protected under Article 36 of the Constitution. Every country has one or more minority groups with characteristic ethnic, linguistic, and religious identity different from that of the majority population. The respect (in the beliefs and eyes of the majority) for the basic rights of the minorities creates a harmonious environment in the society. This harmony, however, not only needs ethical firmity in the norms of society but also a strong, rigid, and ever helping legal framework to help minorities from all the flaws that emerge from inertia of the status-quo now and lack of clarity. Like any other country of the planet Earth, a good number of people, particularly belonging to Hindu, Sikh and Christian communities are living in Pakistan, but facing host of problems now added by NADRA. Since more than 95% of the population of our country is Muslim, as such, it would be appropriate to trace the history of the rights and interests of minorities in the early period of Islam. Historically, right from the conquest of Makkah, the minorities were enjoying their legitimate interests and rights including the right to lift, property, practice of faith, freedom of movement, vocation, association and freedom of religion and culture. Thus the registration system designed to cater 95% of the population cannot be a burdon of the remaining 5%. In fact the system must cater for 100% of the population.

25. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the international Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is duty of every state to take necessary measures to ensure that the persons belonging to minorities may exercise fully and effectively all their human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full equality before the law. States are also required to create favorable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards.

26. That's why Article 36 of the Constitution has made it obligatory on the State to safeguard legitimate rights and interests of minorities including their due representation in the Federal and Provincial Services. The Constitution provides equal rights to religious minorities and prohibits discrimination on the ground of religion, caste, creed, gender or place of birth.

27. It is thus ordered that from the order of the Court dated 26.05.2023 and 02.06.2023 this Court held as under:- Order dated 26.05.2023 Partly heard counsel for the parties regarding adoption of children and how their parentage ought to be shown in NADRA record. Learned counsel referred to various provisions of NADRA Ordinance and the computer system which operates therein, as well as the legal process which seemingly does not cater for the possibility of entering name of adoptee father/ mother as it only records names of biological parents. It is admitted position that under Muslim law adoption is not possible, but the learned counsel for the respondent states that in the Hindu Law it is permissible to adopt a male or female child. Reference in this regard is made to Chapter 23 Paras 450 to 455 of D.F Mulla 9th edition. Learned counsel for the respondent discloses that respondent is Gadeesar and it is a Hindu ritual that Gadessar will remain unmarried for his whole life and maintains affairs of Mandar as well as perform religious rituals. Case in hand of the respondent is that he in fact is Gadeesar of Mandir Rangi Pur located in Pir Jo Goth. The complexity in the case is that respondent is an adopted son of previous Poojari Hari Parkash (who lived and died as an unmarried Individual) and his father's name earlier mentioned in NADRA record was Hari Parkash as well as his educational documents how same name, rather than his biological father's name Gul Mukhdas. It is further contended that the said respondent when approached NADRA at the first instance he recorded his father name as Hari Parkash and date of birth being 18.04.1989, but later on he found out that his actual date of birth was 28.02.1993 Instead. He thus filed F.C. Suit No. 78/2018 for correction his date of birth before Court of Senior Civil Judge-III, Khairpurt where his suit was decided vide judgment dated 18.06.2019 and decree dated 20.06.2019, against which applicant filed Civil Appeal No.29/2021 before Additional District Judge-IV Khairpur, which was dismissed vide Judgment dated 31.03.2021 decree dated 02.04.2021. both the Judgments and decrees are challenged by the Counsel for NADRA through the instant civil revision stating that he was condemned unheard and he was not given chance to cross examine the witnesses, so also the medical certificate produced by respondent which was required by NADRA authorities to authenticate age of said respondent was not legit. After arguing the matter at some length learned counsel for respondent chose to not to challenge date of birth, but judgments of the trial Court also discuss the issue of placement of name of adoptee father instead of biological father is an offence under NADRA law where section 18 requires true and correct Information only. Therefore, now the question arises that when NADRA system does not recognize adoptee parents, but Hindu law does so, what remedies are available for such citizens to obtain CNIC showing names of their adoptee parents, as well as, what is the relief when even their adoptee father remained married, which means that adoptee child could never have name of his/her mother. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Akhund Advocate on next date of hearing to assist the Court with regards these Issues arising out of present situations and lacunas of the computer system. Matter adjourned to 02.06.2023. Regional Director NADRA Sukkur Head quarter is also directed to appear to assist this Court regarding potential changes in NADRA's Date Base. In the fitness of the above it will be appropriate that notice be issued to the Federal Government through DAG in compliance of Order XXVIIA of the C.P.C. too for the next date of hearing. Order dated 02.06.2023 Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Ghulam Hussain and Mr. Safdar Kamal are present and have shown willingness to issue fresh CNIC (Computerized National Identity Card) to respondent No.1 "Amar Parkash" mentioning name of his father "Hari Parkash" while keeping the name of his mother as Blank/NA with his date of birth as 18.04.1989. Let the needful be done in no more than three (3) weeks. Court is also been requested to detail out parameters which ought to be followed by NADRA authorities in the issuance of CNIC to Hindu adoptee child or regarding their family registration. The Court is also requested that in the reasoning, direction be issued to relevant authorities to promulgate laws and regulations in the light of Articles 29 and 36 of the Constitution. These aspects will be covered in the detailed reasoning. The revision is disposed of in above terms." And these are my reasons of doing so. MH/N-10/Sindh Order accordingly. 1 Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in Naheed Nusrat Hashmi v. Secretary Education (Elementary) Punjab reported as PLD 2006 Supreme Court 1124 and Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui v. Aftab Alam reported as PLD 2013 Supreme Court 323.