April 14, 2026
Muhamamd Junaid & Iqra Manzoor
LAHORE
Non-governmental organizations will now be subject to more scrutiny and surveillance by the authorities, following the reinstating of the federal government’s policy by the Lahore High Court (LHC). The 2022 policy aims at regulating foreign contributions to NGOs and non-profit organisations. It set aside a single-judge ruling that had declared the framework unlawful for lacking statutory backing.
Advocate Saqib Jillani, counsel for the petitioners, termed the outcome of the intra-court appeal ‘a very bad decision’, signalling the petitioners’ intent to challenge it before superior courts. The petitioners include Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), Dastak, and Cecil and Iris Chaudhry Foundation (CICF).
A two-member bench comprising Justice Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal and Justice Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi allowed three intra-court appeals filed by the federation against a September 2024 judgment, which had struck down the policy and raised concerns over its compatibility with constitutional protections.
The restored “Policy for Local NGOs/NPOs Receiving Foreign Contributions 2022” governs the receipt, utilisation, monitoring and accountability of foreign funding received by civil society organisations operating in Pakistan.
However Voicepk repeatedly reached out to Additional Attorney General Mirza Nasar Ahmad, representing the federal government, and Deputy Secretary of the Economic Affairs Division (EAD), Aftab Ahmad Khan for their perspective on the ruling but received no response.
Background to the case
The case stems from a challenge filed by civil society organisations, including the HRCP, against the 2022 policy issued after approval of the federal cabinet. Petitioners had argued that the framework lacked legislative backing and violated constitutional guarantees, including freedom of association and the right to conduct lawful business.
In September 2024, a single bench of the LHC accepted these arguments and struck down the policy, observing that the federal cabinet could not exercise legislative powers unless expressly authorised by law.
The federal government subsequently filed intra-court appeals, maintaining that the policy was a valid exercise of executive authority under the Constitution and had been properly approved in accordance with the Rules of Business, 1973.
Key questions before the court
The division bench framed two core questions: whether the federal government is competent to regulate NGOs receiving foreign contributions, and whether constitutional courts can interfere in executive policy-making through writ jurisdiction.
Answering both in favour of the federation, the court held that under Articles 90 and 99 of the Constitution, the federal government is empowered to conduct its business and formulate policy. It further noted that the Rules of Business, 1973 — framed under constitutional authority — provide a binding framework for executive decision-making.
The bench observed that the impugned policy was duly approved by the federal cabinet and issued by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, which is competent to regulate foreign assistance and related financial flows to NGOs.
Describing the policy as a “comprehensive regulatory instrument”, the court said it covers eligibility, registration, monitoring, suspension, and accountability mechanisms for organisations receiving foreign funds.
Judicial restraint in policy matters
On the scope of judicial review, the bench reiterated that courts must exercise restraint in matters of policy unless there is a clear violation of fundamental rights, statutory law, constitutional provisions, or evidence of mala fide intent or arbitrariness.
It cited multiple Supreme Court precedents to underline that courts are not to act as appellate authorities over executive policy decisions, nor can they substitute their own judgment regarding the “wisdom, suitability or adequacy” of such policies.
“In the absence of such violations, policy-making remains the exclusive domain of the executive,” the judgment noted.
The court also emphasised that the Cabinet, under a parliamentary system, is the primary decision-making body of the executive and cannot be reduced to a “rubber stamp” for decisions taken elsewhere.
The judgment relied heavily on Articles 90 and 99 of the Constitution and the Rules of Business, 1973, holding that executive authority is exercised through structured procedures involving ministries, divisions and cabinet approval.
It also noted that policy decisions involving significant political or administrative implications require cabinet consideration, which in this case had been duly obtained.
The bench further held that the earlier ruling had erred in applying Article 18 (freedom of trade and business), observing that the matter instead fell within the executive domain governed by Article 99, which deals with the conduct of federal government business.
Allowing the appeals, the court set aside the September 2024 judgment and restored the 2022 policy, effectively reviving the regulatory regime governing foreign funding of NGOs and NPOs in Pakistan.
‘A Very Bad Decision’
Advocate Saqib Jillani, representing the petitioners, called the intra-court appeal ruling ‘a very bad decision’, maintaining that the 2022 policy, like the earlier 2013 framework struck down by courts, lacked statutory backing and violated constitutional protections, including the rights to freedom of association and business.
Speaking to Voicepk, Jillani argued that the federal government could not regulate NGOs through executive policy alone, saying such matters required parliamentary legislation under the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.
He further contended that the policy places unreasonable restrictions on the functioning of civil society organisations and infringes Article 17 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association subject to reasonable restrictions.
Jillani said the petitioners had challenged the policy on behalf of several organisations, including the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, and argued that existing legal frameworks already regulate NGOs and their foreign funding through established statutory mechanisms.
He added that despite earlier judicial findings against similar regulatory frameworks, the latest policy was reintroduced with cabinet approval, which he said did not cure its constitutional defects.
Rights Concerns
Tanveer Jahan, Director of the Democratic Commission for Human Development (DCHD), also highlighted the long-standing challenges faced by civil society under regulatory frameworks.
Speaking to Voicepk, Tanvir pointed out the “continuous backlash against human rights organisations and civil society for decades.”
“This is not something new,” she said. “Even in the past, such policies created significant hurdles. Due to EAD approvals, the process was often prolonged, which negatively impacted many projects. Clearly, the capacity of the EAD has been very limited and it has its own challenges. Now, as a result of this judgment and the policy, small organisations are unlikely to survive in such an environment. Only those organisations that are willing to compromise will survive, while those that do not will eventually be pushed out.”
She called out the overall attitude of the government.
“Our country has not been pro-human rights. Civil rights movements and organisations have historically spoken out against authoritarianism, including challenging Islamisation during Zia’s era. Civil society has played a vital role in the development of laws and society as a whole. Civil society exists to challenge the control of the state. But if civil society itself is controlled by the state, then who is it meant to hold accountable? Where is my freedom to criticise the state if it is exploiting its powers?”
She added that she is not too hopeful about the judiciary, as it has not been in their favour.
“It often feels as though laws are being shaped to control us in every possible way. In such circumstances, one cannot truly exercise their freedom.”
Michelle Chaudhry, President of The Cecil & Iris Chaudhry Foundation (CICF), also raised concerns over the policy’s impact on civil society.
She told Voicepk, the framework has become “bureaucratic, opaque, and discretionary,” with extensive controls over registration, renewal, and foreign funding approvals.
She added that such mechanisms risk restricting organisations working on sensitive issues, including human rights, governance accountability, and minority rights.
The judgment is expected to have wider implications for regulatory frameworks governing NGOs and the balance between executive policymaking and judicial review in Pakistan.