Imagine this: you have spent three, four, five years studying medicine in Pakistan. You came here on a scholarship, earned your seat on merit, entered on a valid study visa, and your college accepted you like any other student. Then one day your college administration calls you in and says you have 24 hours to pack up and leave — not because you failed an exam, not because of misconduct, but because your nationality has become a problem.

That is what happened to dozens of Afghan medical students across Punjab in recent weeks. And on 16 October 2026, the Lahore High Court stepped in again to protect them. Justice Khalid Ishaq extended the interim stay order preventing medical colleges across Punjab from expelling 30 or more Afghan medical students while their petitions are heard. It is the second time the court has had to shield these students — and the case raises some of the deepest questions in Pakistani constitutional law: who decides who can study here, what happens to a scholarship once it is given, and whether the state can change the rules in the middle of the game.

This article explains what happened, what the students are arguing, what the court said, and why the case matters far beyond these 30 students.

The PMDC Directives That Started It All

The dispute began with two directives from the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) — dated 31 July 2026 and 1 September 2026. The directives ordered Afghan students currently studying at Pakistani medical colleges to return to Afghanistan, and barred the admission of any new Afghan students.

The language of the directive was unusually blunt. It stated that "no form of facilitation of Afghan nationals is permitted for the current academic session," and described the matter as being of "highest priority" and relating to "national policy directions." In plain terms: the regulator was telling colleges that Afghan students were no longer welcome, and that this came from the top.

Colleges moved fast. Students report that at least 43 students at King Edward Medical University (KEMU) and Fatima Jinnah Medical University alone were told to leave their campuses — some given as little as 24 hours to vacate. Think about what that means for a medical student in the middle of a semester: years of study, clinical rotations, hostel life, examination preparation — all erased with a day's notice, on the basis of a directive issued to their college, not to them.

The students did what anyone facing an unlawful state action should do: they went to court. And the Lahore High Court, more than once now, has agreed that they cannot be thrown out while the legality of the expulsion is being decided.

Who Are These Students? The Merit and Scholarship Story

To understand why this case is legally powerful, you need to understand who the petitioners are. They are not undocumented entrants or people who slipped into colleges through back doors. According to their petitions:

  • They were admitted on merit under the Afghan refugee quota — a quota the Pakistani state itself created for Afghan students.
  • Many are beneficiaries of the Allama Muhammad Iqbal Scholarship Program for Afghan nationals, a Pakistani government scholarship scheme named after the country's national poet. Pakistan did not just admit these students; it actively invited and funded them as part of its relationship with Afghanistan.
  • They entered Pakistan on valid study visas, issued by the same state that now claims their presence is a problem.

This background matters enormously in law. When a state creates a quota, awards a scholarship, grants a visa, and accepts a student into a medical college, it creates what lawyers call a legitimate expectation — the reasonable belief that the rules will not be changed mid-course to destroy everything you have built. A student who leaves home on a government scholarship, spends years studying, and is then told to go home with 24 hours' notice is the textbook case of why legitimate expectation exists as a legal principle.

What the Court Did on 16 October 2026

On 16 October 2026, the petitions came back before Justice Khalid Ishaq of the Lahore High Court. The students asked the court to continue protecting them while the main case is decided. Two things happened that day:

  1. PMDC asked for an adjournment — meaning the regulator's own lawyer asked for more time instead of defending the directive. The court accepted the request.
  2. The court extended the interim stay — so the order preventing colleges from expelling the Afghan students remains in force.

An interim stay is not a final decision on who is right. It is the court saying: this situation is serious enough, and the harm of expulsion is irreversible enough, that nothing should happen until we have properly heard both sides. If a student is expelled and loses a semester — or is forced back to Afghanistan mid-degree — no later court victory can fully undo that damage. That is the classic reason courts grant interim relief, and it is exactly what happened here.

Justice Ishaq's Questions: The Visa Argument and the Security Framing

What made the 16 October hearing significant was not just the order — it was what the judge said. According to court reporting, Justice Ishaq put two pointed questions to the state's case:

First, the visa question. The judge asked, in substance: if these students were granted education visas when they were admitted, how can the visa now be the problem? This goes to the heart of the case. The state issued the visas. The state accepted the students. The colleges enrolled them. If there was a policy problem, it existed on day one — the students did not create it, and they should not be punished for it now. A government cannot first roll out the red carpet and then complain that someone walked in.

Second, the "national security" framing. When states defend difficult decisions, "national security" is the argument most often raised — and the argument courts are most cautious about rejecting. Justice Ishaq reportedly rejected that framing in this case. That is significant. It means the court was not willing to accept a bare invocation of security as a reason to expel admitted, documented, scholarship-holding medical students without due process. The judge was, in effect, asking: show me the individual security concern against these specific students, or stop using the phrase to avoid answering the legal questions.

These observations are not the final judgment. But they tell lawyers and observers which way the wind is blowing: the court is taking the students' rights seriously and is not impressed by procedural shortcuts.

The Legal Concepts at Stake

This case is a goldmine of constitutional and administrative law. Here are the principles the court will have to weigh:

Judicial review of PMDC's powers (vires)

The PMDC is a statutory regulator. Like every statutory body, it can only do what the law allows it to do — this is the doctrine of vires (Latin for "powers"). The students' case asks a fundamental question: does the PMDC Act actually give the Council the power to order the expulsion of an entire nationality of enrolled students on the basis of "national policy directions"? A regulator created to maintain standards of medical education is not an immigration authority. If the PMDC acted beyond its statutory powers, its directives are ultra vires — beyond the law — and void. Courts in Pakistan have repeatedly struck down actions by regulators who overstepped their mandate, no matter how high the authority that "directed" them.

Legitimate expectation

As discussed above, when the state makes a promise — a quota, a scholarship, a visa, an admission — and people arrange their lives around it, the law protects that reliance. The doctrine of legitimate expectation does not mean the government can never change policy. It means that when it does, it must do so fairly: with notice, with a hearing, and with transitional protections for those already inside the system. Telling scholarship students to leave in 24 hours fails every part of that test.

Due process before expulsion

Expulsion from a medical college is one of the most severe administrative actions that can be taken against a young person. It ends a career before it begins. Pakistani law — and the principles of natural justice that run through it — requires that before such an action, the affected person must be heard. Audi alteram partem: hear the other side. The students' account is that they were given a directive-driven deadline, not a hearing. A court will want to know: was each student individually heard? Was any reason recorded against any individual student? Or was an entire nationality expelled by circular?

Article 25-A: the right to education

Article 25-A of the Constitution declares that the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children aged five to sixteen. These are university students, so Article 25-A does not apply to them directly in the way it applies to schoolchildren. But courts have read the constitutional value placed on education as informing how the state treats students generally. More importantly, the spirit of Article 25-A — that education is a fundamental national commitment, not a favour to be withdrawn on a whim — colours how a court views the mid-degree expulsion of documented students.

Scholarship as a protected interest

A scholarship is not charity in the eyes of the law once it has been awarded and acted upon. It is a vested interest. The Allama Muhammad Iqbal Scholarship Program is a state program, and students selected under it have a legal relationship with the awarding authority. Withdrawing the benefit mid-course, without cause and without process, is the kind of arbitrary state action that constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution exist to challenge.

The Parallel Battles: PHC and the Registration Delays

The LHC case is not happening in isolation. It is part of a wider legal front:

  • Peshawar High Court: The PHC has extended similar protection to 17 Afghan postgraduate doctors in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, who faced removal from their training positions. The same legal logic — admitted on merit, serving in hospitals, entitled to due process — applies.
  • PMDC registration delays: Separately, Afghan MBBS graduates from the 2021–2026 batches are before the LHC over delays by the PMDC in granting them registration — the licence they need to actually practise as doctors. A student can survive expulsion proceedings and graduate, only to find the regulator will not register them. The courts are being asked to look at the whole pipeline: admission, study, graduation, registration.

There are also reports, citing Dawn, that Quaid-e-Azam Medical College in Bahawalpur had begun expelling around 20 Afghan doctors and medical students — showing that the pressure on the ground is real and ongoing, which is precisely why the courts keep extending the stays.

Taken together, these cases paint a picture of a systemic squeeze on Afghan medical students and graduates at every stage — and a judiciary that, so far, is pushing back at every stage.

Why This Case Matters Beyond the 30 Students

It is tempting to read this as a Pakistan–Afghanistan relations story. It is, in part. But for Pakistani readers, the legal principles at stake affect everyone:

  • If a regulator can expel students by circular today, it can do the same to another group tomorrow. The vires question — whether the PMDC had the legal power to do this — is a question about the limits of every regulator's power, from medical councils to bar councils to tax authorities.
  • If legitimate expectation does not protect scholarship students, it does not protect anyone who relies on a government scheme — a quota, a subsidy, a licence, a plot allotment. Every Pakistani who has ever arranged their life around a state promise has a stake in this doctrine surviving.
  • If "national security" can be invoked without specifics to override due process, then due process is only as strong as the government's willingness to describe its reasons. Justice Ishaq's refusal to accept the bare framing is a reminder that courts can — and do — demand more.

There is also a practical, national-interest angle worth stating plainly. Pakistan trained these students — many on Pakistani scholarships — as doctors. Afghanistan's healthcare system desperately needs doctors. Every expelled medical student is years of Pakistani educational investment destroyed, and a future doctor lost to a region that needs them. Whatever one's view of the broader policy, the human and practical cost of mid-degree expulsions is undeniable.

What Happens Next

The case is not over. The stay is interim, the PMDC sought and got an adjournment, and the petitions will be heard in full. Here is what to watch for:

  1. The PMDC's written reply. So far the regulator has sought time rather than defended the directives on the merits. When it does file its reply, its explanation of the legal basis for the expulsion orders will be the centrepiece of the case.
  2. Whether the court examines each directive's vires. The key legal question is whether the PMDC Act empowers the Council to issue nationality-based expulsion and admission-bar directives. If the court finds the directives ultra vires, they fall entirely.
  3. The PHC and registration cases. Outcomes in Peshawar and in the registration-delay petitions will shape the overall legal landscape for Afghan medical students and graduates.
  4. The colleges' position. Medical colleges are caught between their regulator and the courts. The stay orders currently resolve that conflict in favour of the courts — colleges cannot expel while the stay holds.

For the students, the immediate reality is relief mixed with uncertainty. They can stay, study, and sit their exams for now. But until the petitions are finally decided, their futures remain in the hands of the court's calendar.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What exactly did the Lahore High Court order on 16 October 2026? A: Justice Khalid Ishaq extended the interim stay order that prevents medical colleges across Punjab from expelling 30 or more Afghan medical students while their petitions challenging the expulsions are heard. The PMDC's request for an adjournment was accepted, meaning the regulator did not argue its case that day. An interim stay is temporary protection, not a final verdict — it preserves the status quo until the court decides the main case.

Q: Why does the PMDC want Afghan medical students expelled? A: Through directives dated 31 July and 1 September 2026, the PMDC ordered Afghan students to return to Afghanistan and barred new Afghan admissions, stating that "no form of facilitation of Afghan nationals is permitted for the current academic session" and describing the matter as being of "highest priority" relating to "national policy directions." The PMDC has not yet, in these proceedings, fully defended the legal basis of those directives in open court — it sought an adjournment on 16 October.

Q: The students were on scholarships — does that give them legal protection? A: Yes, significantly. The students were admitted on merit under the Afghan refugee quota and many hold Pakistani government scholarships under the Allama Muhammad Iqbal Scholarship Program for Afghan nationals, and entered on valid study visas. In law, this creates a "legitimate expectation" — when the state makes a commitment and people build their lives around it, the state cannot withdraw it arbitrarily, without notice, hearing, or transitional protection. A scholarship once awarded and acted upon is treated as a vested interest, not a favour.

Q: What did Justice Ishaq say about the "national security" argument? A: According to court reporting, the judge questioned how the students could have been granted education visas at admission if visas are now presented as the problem, and rejected the state's broad "national security" framing. In plain terms: the court was unwilling to accept a general invocation of security as a substitute for specific, individual reasons against these documented students. The judge's observations are not the final judgment, but they signal the court's sceptical attitude toward the expulsion.

Q: Are similar cases happening in other courts? A: Yes. The Peshawar High Court has extended protection to 17 Afghan postgraduate doctors in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa facing removal, and Afghan MBBS graduates of the 2021–2026 batches are separately before the Lahore High Court over PMDC delays in granting them medical registration. There are also reports that Quaid-e-Azam Medical College Bahawalpur began expelling around 20 Afghan doctors and students. The LHC stay currently protects the Punjab students while their petitions proceed.

Q: What happens next in the case? A: The petitions will be heard in full after the adjournment. The decisive questions will be whether the PMDC's directives were within its legal powers (vires), whether the students' legitimate expectation and due-process rights were violated, and what remedy follows. Until the final decision, the interim stay keeps the students in their colleges. If the court ultimately strikes down the directives, the expulsions fall; if it upholds them, the students' remaining remedy would be an appeal.

The Bottom Line

This article provides general legal information for readers in Pakistan and is not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, consult a qualified advocate.