KARACHI: The opposition Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf on Monday moved the Sindh High Court against a series of notifications issued by the provincial home department to detain 180 party workers under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance.

On Feb 1, the Sindh home department issued notifications under MPO to detain as many as 180 PTI workers, who were picked up from all the seven districts in Karachi, for 30 days on the ground that they “are instigating public to block roads, highways and organise sit-ins, which may disturb peace and tranquillity and can create serious law and order problems”.

On Monday, PTI-Sindh general secretary Mansoor Ali Sial petitioned the SHC through his lawyer Ali Tahir, asking the court to declare the impugned notifications unconstitutional and without lawful authority.

Citing the chief secretary, home secretary, the inspector general of police, Karachi police chief and several other police officials as respondents, the petitioner also sought immediate release of the workers detained under MPO.

Another constitutional bench to take up plea today after Justice Nisar Bhanbhro recuses himself from hearing

A two-member constitutional bench of the SHC comprising Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro took up the petition for hearing.

However, Justice Bhanbhro recused himself from hearing the case, which was then sent to the registrar office with a direction to fix it for hearing before another constitutional bench of the SHC on Tuesday (today).

In his petition, Mr Sial stated that the impugned detention orders were issued in the wake of the PTI’s Feb 8 nationwide strike call to commemorate the second anniversary of the general elections.

He stated that the impugned detention orders were based on vague and deliberately ambiguous allegations and the same did not disclose any specific incident, individual act and proximate threat or any concrete material that could reasonably justify the detention.

Citing various judgements and orders of the superior and higher judiciary, the petitioner maintained that mere invocation of public order and without disclosure of concrete material, specific acts or individualised satisfaction did not meet the constitutional threshold for preventive detention.

He contended that after the 18th Amendment, the word “government” unequivocally means the provincial cabinet and any exercise of power under section 3(1) of the MPO Ordinance must therefore reflect the conscious, collective and documented satisfaction of the provincial cabinet.

The petitioner further alleged that law enforcement agencies had conducted hundreds of illegal raids, storming into private homes without warrants, often in the dead of night, and abducting citizens without due process, vandalising property and looting personal belongings in the 180 documented cases.

He alleged that law enforcement agencies had also detained minors including children of 16 years while women and elderly citizens were also allegedly subjected to humiliation and verbal abuse during such warrantless raids.

Besides pleading to set aside the impugned detention orders, the petitioner sought directives for respondents to produce the complete and original record including all summaries, intelligence reports, recommendations, approvals, notes and decision-making documents allegedly relied upon for issuance of the impugned orders including any purported approval or consideration by the provincial cabinet.

He also asked the SHC to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the home secretary for wilful disobedience and defiance of the earlier judgments of the SHC in the MPO matters.

The petitioner further pleaded to issue directive to the respondents to ensure that no preventive detention order under the MPO Ordinance should be issued in the province without strict compliance with constitutional requirements, individualised satisfaction and demonstrable approval of the provincial cabinet.

Published in Dawn, February 3rd, 2026