ISLAMABAD: A day after her sister approached the Supreme Court for her release from Huda Jail in Quetta, Dr Mahrang Baloch on Thursday moved a similar appeal challenging her detention under the Maintenance of Public Order and the May 22 Balochistan High Court’s (BHC) decision to uphold the same.

Dr Mahrang Baloch was arrested on March 22 after weeks of protest on the directives of the Quetta deputy commissioner under Section 3(1) of the Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (BMPO) 1960 for a period of 30 days (first term). Thereafter, her detention was extended for an additional 30 days (second term) through a decision of the provincial cabinet in April.

The latest appeal was jointly filed by senior counsel Faisal Siddiqi as well as Advocate Muhammad Jibran Nasir in which it was stated that the detenue was a human rights activist working against injustice, atrocities and transgressions allegedly committed by the state, with a primary focus on bringing an end to the unconstitutional practice of enforced disappearance.

Dr Mahrang is the central organiser of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) and recognised globally as the leading voice and representative of the aspirations of the people, especially of the youth of Balochistan, the petition contended. The petition urged the Supreme Court to set aside the BHC order, which, according to the petitioner, was without jurisdiction, illegal and liable to be set aside.

Petition says detention in addition to Fourth Schedule restrictions amounts to ‘excessive and punitive control’

The petitioner argued that the high court erred by failing to consider that the continued preventive detention of Dr Baloch was entirely unjustified and disproportionate, particularly when her name has already been placed in the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1977, thereby subjecting her to stringent restrictions on movement, liberty and livelihood under Section 11 EE of the act.

Further preventive detention under MPO ,in addition to these restrictions, amounts to excessive and punitive control which fails the tests of legality, necessity and proportionality, the petition contended. The appeal contended that Dr Mahrang was entitled to be released from preventive custody so that she may lawfully defend herself in pending cases and seek appropriate legal remedies.

The continuation of both parallel regimes – preventive detention and proscription – simultaneously is legally unsustainable and amounts to excessive restrictions and penalisation, the petition said.

The governing provision for deciding a representation against a detention order is Section 3(6A) of the BMPO, which the provincial cabinet failed to correctly identify, invoke or comply with, the petition argued. It added that this lack of awareness of the actual law and misapplication of mind was further evident by the fact that the cabinet, in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 3(6A) of BMPO, did not afford the detenue any opportunity of hearing.

The reliance on an inapplicable and non-existent law, coupled with denial of a mandatory hearing, rendered the high court decision unlawful, without jurisdiction and liable to be declared void, the petition said.

The petition stated that the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioner and irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner if the operation of the high court order was not suspended during the pendency of the present case.

Published in Dawn, June 13th, 2025