Pakistan’s Lahore High Court on Monday reversed a September 2024 ruling that had invalidated the federal government’s 2022 policy regulating foreign contributions to non-governmental and non-profit organisations. A two-member bench comprising Justice Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal and Justice Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi restored the Policy for Local NGOs/NPOs Receiving Foreign Contributions 2022, determining that such policy-making fell squarely within the executive domain and was protected from judicial interference.
The reversal marks a significant turn in Pakistan’s ongoing legal contest over state authority to regulate civil society funding. In September 2024, Justice Asim Hafeez had struck down the 2022 policy, holding that the constitutional scheme did not permit the federal cabinet to exercise legislative powers without explicit legislative authority. He had declared the policy unlawful, invalid and of no legal effect, effectively neutering the government’s regulatory framework for NGOs receiving foreign money. The federal government subsequently filed multiple intra-court appeals challenging that judgment.
The restoration carries profound implications for Pakistan’s governance architecture and civil society space. The 2022 policy represents the government’s second attempt to establish regulatory oversight of foreign funding flows to NGOs—an earlier 2013 framework was similarly struck down by courts. The cyclical nature of these legal challenges underscores fundamental tensions between executive prerogative and judicial review in Pakistan’s constitutional order. The bench’s decision signals judicial deference to executive action in policy-making domains, a posture that may embolden future government regulatory initiatives but could also raise concerns among rights advocates regarding accountability mechanisms.
During proceedings, Advocate Saqib Jillani, representing petitioners challenging the policy, argued that the 2022 framework lacked statutory backing and violated fundamental rights protections, particularly the constitutional right to freedom of association and business. Jillani contended that the policy, like its 2013 predecessor, had been formulated without sufficient legislative grounding. The Additional Attorney General Mirza Nasar Ahmad countered this position on behalf of the federation, asserting that the policy had been duly approved by the federal cabinet and issued in accordance with the Rules of Business, 1973. The government maintained that no additional legislative authority was required for the cabinet to issue such policy directives.
The division bench framed the dispute around two core constitutional questions: whether the federal government possessed authority to formulate policies regulating NGOs receiving foreign contributions, and whether constitutional courts possessed jurisdiction to interfere in such policy decisions through writ petitions. In answering both questions in favour of the government, the bench affirmed an expansive reading of executive power in the policy-making domain. This reasoning provides legal ground for similar regulatory efforts across government departments, potentially emboldening federal authorities to pursue policy-based governance in other contested areas without immediate fear of judicial nullification.
The decision reflects broader global trends in state-civil society relations, particularly in South Asia and beyond, where governments increasingly seek to monitor and regulate cross-border funding flows to NGOs. Pakistan’s approach mirrors regulatory frameworks adopted in neighbouring countries, though often with sharper contention over democratic legitimacy. Rights organisations and international donors have historically expressed concerns about the chilling effect such regulations impose on civil society functioning, particularly for organisations working on human rights, labour rights, and governance issues. The restoration of the 2022 policy suggests that such concerns, while voiced, have not persuaded Pakistan’s judiciary to restrict executive regulatory authority on this front.
Going forward, observers will watch whether the restored policy’s implementation generates fresh legal challenges based on specific provisions or their application to particular organisations. Civil society groups may seek to challenge individual enforcement actions rather than the policy framework itself, potentially creating a new litigation frontier. Additionally, the bench’s deference to executive policy-making in this domain may embolden governments across South Asia to adopt similar frameworks, accelerating a regional shift toward tighter NGO oversight. The decision leaves unresolved deeper questions about the balance between state security interests and open civic space—tensions that will likely resurface through different litigation pathways in Pakistani courts.
