Supreme Court sends plea challenging Mahrang Baloch’s detention to the Practice and Procedure Committee

A five-member Constitutional Bench of Pakistan’s Supreme Court has decided to refer a petition challenging the detention of Dr. Mahrang Baloch, a leader of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), to the Practice and Procedure Committee. This committee is responsible for overseeing the formation of benches and scheduling cases under the recently enacted Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. The move signals that the case will undergo further procedural review before any final decision is made.

The petition was filed in June by Nadia Baloch, sister of Dr. Mahrang, through senior counsel Faisal Siddiqi. It seeks to overturn an order issued on April 15 by the Balochistan High Court, which dismissed a challenge to Dr. Mahrang’s detention. The detention was carried out under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) law, which allows authorities to hold individuals deemed a threat to public order for up to 30 days, with extensions possible.

During the hearing, the bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and including Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Shakeel Ahmad, listened to arguments from both sides. Faisal Siddiqi argued that the case should be fixed before a regular bench rather than a constitutional one, emphasizing that the challenge was specific to the detention order rather than the law itself.

However, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that because the petition challenged the MPO law, it was appropriate for the case to be heard by a constitutional bench. Siddiqi responded that his client was not seeking an interpretation of the law but was simply contesting the detention order issued under it. After brief deliberations, the bench decided to refer the case to the Practice and Procedure Committee for appropriate assignment, rather than proceeding further at that moment.

Following the hearing, media interviews revealed differing perspectives. Lawyer Jibran Nasir expressed the view that the case was not suitable for a Constitutional Bench and accused the court of intentionally placing it there to delay proceedings. He pointed out that the case would now be listed before another bench, which he predicted would prolong the process and cause further frustration for the petitioner.

Nadia Baloch, speaking to the media, accused authorities of deliberately prolonging the legal process to keep Dr. Mahrang and other BYC leaders imprisoned. She claimed that the authorities were intentionally delaying hearings and moving cases inside prisons on government orders, which she said was designed to hinder judicial progress and silence dissent.

She further alleged that new and fabricated charges against the detained activists were being repeatedly filed to prevent their release. Nadia cited specific figures, stating that there are 25 FIRs registered against Dr. Mahrang and other activists in Quetta alone, with an additional five FIRs in Mastung. She explained that whenever bail is granted in one case, new cases are immediately registered to perpetuate their detention.

Nadia criticized the role of the Counter Terrorism Department (CTD), police, judiciary, and provincial government, accusing them of working together to impede the judicial process. She pointed out that courts often delay hearings by claiming that challans have not been submitted or that there are documentary deficiencies, which she said was a tactic to stall proceedings.

She also highlighted that holding hearings inside prisons was a deliberate move to restrict media access and silence the voices of the detained leaders. Nadia shared her frustration over the restrictions placed on her and others wishing to visit the activists, including the denial of permission to meet Dr. Mahrang by authorities.

Concluding her remarks, Nadia urged the Baloch public not to forget their imprisoned leaders. She emphasized that the state’s strategy was to keep Dr. Mahrang and others behind bars in order to conceal ongoing human rights abuses in Balochistan. She lamented that this strategy seemed to be working effectively, allowing the suppression of voices advocating for Baloch rights and justice.