May 27, 2025
By Xari Jalil
LAHORE
As of May 27, 2025, prominent human rights activist and the central organizer of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), Dr. Mahrang Baloch, remains detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance. Her detention, initially set for 30 days following her arrest on March 22 during a protest in Quetta, was extended for an additional month on April 22 by the Balochistan Home Department.
The judgment sheet from the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, has now been released – it concerns three consolidated Constitution Petitions: Dr. Mahrang v. The Government of Balochistan (559/2025), Beeburg Baloch and others v. The Government of Pakistan (No. 505/2025), and Imran & others v. The Government of Balochistan (No. 568/2025).
The cases were heard from May 13, 2025.
Petitioners’ Case
The petitioners – including Dr. Mahrang Baloch – are human rights activists who claim to be raising issues of human rights violations in Balochistan. They are active members of the Baloch Yekjehti Committee (BYC), which campaigns against extrajudicial killings, mass arrests, torture, and enforced disappearances in Balochistan. They state that on March 22, 2025, Dr. Mahrang Baloch and affected families organized a sit-in on Sariab Road, Quetta, but it was not allowed. A large contingent of police arrived and arrested women and other activists, including Dr. Mahrang Baloch, and subsequently, the remaining petitioners were also arrested. The petitioners called into question their detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (the MPO).
Government’s Response and Actions
Notices were issued to official respondents, and on April 29, 2025, the Advocate General stated that the government had constituted a committee to scrutinize the petitioners’ cases. The government intended to release petitioners against whom insufficient evidence was available, while contesting those against whom sufficient evidence existed for instigating public disorder that could lead to violence and property damage.
Out of 96 petitioners in CP No. 568 of 2025, 92 were released, with the government contesting the cases of Imran, Beebow, Gulzadi, Abdul Ghaffar, and Bebarg. In CP No. 505 of 2025, two of four petitioners were released, and the government is contesting the petitions of Beburg Baloch (Petitioner No. 1) and Sibghatullah (Petitioner No. 4).
The Deputy Commissioner, Quetta, filed an application for in-camera proceedings on May 5, 2025, citing classified issues. This application was contested by the petitioners. The court directed the respondents to file para-wise comments instead of deciding on the in-camera proceedings.
Government’s contention
The respondents strongly contested the petition, stating that the petitioners were involved in organizing violent protests against the State, which resulted in significant damage to public property and threats to civilian lives. They clarified that while the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to peaceful assembly (Article 16) and freedom of association (Article 17), these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.
The respondents assert that protests led by Dr. Mahrang through the BYC violated constitutional boundaries by endangering public safety and order. Specific allegations include:
Unlawful road blockades: Particularly on Sariab Road, violating Section 341 PPC (wrongful restraint) and Section 186 PPC (obstructing public servants). These blockades allegedly prevented critically ill patients from accessing emergency medical care, leading to documented fatalities.
Violent confrontations: With law enforcement and willful destruction of public infrastructure, including an arson attack on the Quetta Post Office. These actions are considered to fall within the prohibitions of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 2015 and Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.
FIRs lodged: Several First Information Reports (FIRs) have been lodged against Dr. Mahrang Baloch, Sibghatullah Baloch, Beebarg Baloch, Bebo Baloch, and Gul Zadi Baloch. These FIRs include charges related to blocking roads, interfering with official work, abusing and intimidating officials, raising slogans against the government and for “free Balochistan,” pelting stones, opening fire on police officials, damaging official property, breaking locks of a press club, forcibly carrying away dead bodies of alleged terrorists, damaging safe city cameras, burning fiber, collapsing poles, and damaging bank property and ATM machines.
Exploitation of train attack: The respondents claimed that BYC leadership exploited the March 11, 2025, train attack to mobilize violent assemblies, and live ammunition was reportedly used against law enforcement personnel during the March 21 protest.
Escalation into Armed Confrontation: The protest degenerated into violent chaos where BYC members allegedly used firearms against law enforcement, conducted stone-pelting attacks, resulting in 15 police officers injured and 3 civilian fatalities from “indiscriminate BYC gunfire”.
Criminal Obstruction of Public Infrastructure: The blockade of Sariab Road violated Section 341 PPC (wrongful restraint), Section 144 CrPC (unlawful assembly), and endangered lives under Section 322 PPC (qatl-bis-sabab), particularly by preventing emergency medical access.
Destruction of State Property: Including the complete destruction of the Quetta Post Office by arson (Section 436 PPC) and loss of government records.
Assault on State Representatives: An attack on the Assistant Commissioner Kuchlak during negotiations constituted an offense under Section 353 PPC (assault on public servant).
Hostage Situation at Sandeman Hospital: Alleged illegal seizure of bodies and confinement of staff violated Section 342 PPC (wrongful confinement), Section 297 PPC (interference with burial), and disrupted essential services under ATA Section 6(2)(j).
The respondents argue that these actions transformed the protests into ‘terrorist offenses’ under ATA Section 6, made the BYC an ‘unlawful organization’ under Section 11-W(1) ATA, and provided grounds for preventive detention under MPO Section 3(1). They asserted that state actions were lawful, proportionate, and necessary to protect the constitutional rights of affected citizens (Article 9), integrity of state institutions (Article 5), and public health infrastructure (Article 38).
The MPO Order was communicated to the petitioners, and their representation was rejected by the government, which further extended their detention for 30 days.
The judgement emphasizes that constitutional rights are ‘conditional and subject to loyalty to the state under Article 5 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973’.
The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the impugned orders do not warrant any interference. The observations made in this judgment will not affect the criminal cases against the petitioners, which are to be decided by the competent court of jurisdiction.
Monday’s court proceedings
On Monday, May 26, The Balochistan High Court (BHC) had ruled that Dr Mahrang Baloch, head of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), should be permitted to meet her lawyers and family members at the district jail in Quetta.
A two-member bench, consisting of Justice Rozi Khan Barech and Justice Shoukat Ali Rakhshani, accepted a petition challenging Mahrang’s arrest under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance.
The petition had been filed by the activist’s sister, Nadia Baloch, with assistance from advocates Habib Tahir, Imran Balcoh, Khalid Kubdani, and Mazdfallah Achakzai.
The legal team argued that Mahrang’s arrest lacked valid justification and infringed upon her constitutional rights under Articles 15, 16, and 19.
In a significant decision, the court issued notices to the federal and provincial interior departments, as well as the inspector general of police, emphasising that every prisoner has the inherent right to consult with their legal representatives and family.
Protests burst out
Meanwhile, protests and strikes were held in various parts of Balochistan in response to the arrest of Mahrang, Sammi Deen Mohammad, and other BYC activists, as well as the ongoing crackdown against the BYC leadership.
Demonstrations and rallies were held in Kalat, Khuzdar, Gwadar, Panjgur, Dalbandin, Usta Mohammad, Nushki, Mastung, and other areas on Tuesday. Following a central call from the Balochistan National Party (BNP), a complete shutter down strike was also observed in Dalbandin to protest the arrests of BYC’s central leaders.
Similar shutter down strikes were observed in various areas of Chagai, while Dalbandin police and local administration worked to maintain law and order. The BNP also held a protest in Kalat, where a complete shutter down strike was observed. All commercial and business centers in the city remained closed. BNP leaders announced that a protest demonstration would be held in front of the Quetta Press Club today.
A rally was organised by the BYC in Usta Mohammad, demanding the release of Mahrang and others. The rally took place in front of the National Bank, where a sit-in was staged. During the sit-in, speakers condemned the arrests of Mahrang and others, demanding that the missing Baloch people be brought to light and presented in court.
A protest rally was also organised by Haq Do Tehreek in Gwadar, which was participated by a large number of men, women, and children, who were carrying placards inscribed with various slogans and demands.
Comments by lawyers, rights activists
Lawyers and rights activists following Mahrang’s case closely have expressed great disappointment at the verdict.
“It was exactly expected from the court, because our courts are not free or enough to go against their orders to take a bold step,” says Imran Baloch Mahrang’s lawyer. “They have just repeated the previous order. In any case, in the entire judicial history there has never been any relief in high profile political cases. Always they have surrendered their powers and unfortunately in this case, justice has been ignored twice.”
“In the case, Mahrang has already completed two terms of 30 days each under 3MPO,” said another one of her lawyers Kamran Murtaza. “Now she is carrying out her third term. The first term was challenged by her sister Nadia. That petition was converted into a representation and sent back to the government and directed that this should be treated like a representation and that a decision should be made on it. By treating it as a representation, they wrote down the facts of Sardar Akhtar Mengal’s sit-in and disposed it off – even though all his protesters who had been arrested have now been released. Mahrang’s sit-in was a separate thing altogether. When this was challenged, the second term was carried out during pendency. We were expecting that and wanted to have the petition includded aganst this term as well.However it was dismissed. The order is challengeable. it has not yet been chalenged but they want to. It is a basic right and they should not crack down on basic freedoms and rights, ever.”
Human rights activist. Mir Muhammad Talpur, who is a prominent voice of the Baloch also spoke to Voicepk.
“I feel there is a concerted and organized attempt by the State institutions to keep the BYC leadership in jail and render the movement leaderless and voiceless,” he said. “The 10 day delay in announcing the dismissal of petition was mala fide, with an intent to delay the petition in the Supreme Court and there too after the 26th Amendment they will put it in the hands of someone like Justice Ejaz Swati to continue the imprisonment of BYC leadership. Struggles and people find ways to resist the injustices against them, and keeping of BYC leaders in jail does not mean the end of the Baloch peoples’ struggle for their rights. Had people stopped their protests, enforced disappearances would not have spiked – the people have not given up.”
Talpur added that the state institutions were ‘complicit in the repression of Baloch people and their rights’.
Habib Tahir, council member of the Balochistan chapter of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), said that the decision by Balcochistan High Court had been disappointing.
“The way forward is to challenge this in the Supreme Court, now,” he said. Tahir was one of the initial legal counsels for Mahrang Baloch. “Like Ali Wazir, Mahrang has been trapped in the judicial system. There are eight to 10 FIRs counted by the government, even though she has not been arrested for any of them. If she is arrested, she will have to first seek permission for bail, then there will be trials and hearings and during all this time she will not be able to move around. All this while she is being labelled a terrorist, without a shred of evidence.”
Tahir condemned the MPO saying that it was a draconian law and that they (activists) were against it since the beginning when it was first imposed. “It has not been frequently used till now. However under the MPO even if they release the individual they still find ways to slap it back on him or her repeatedly and the person is always in process of coming and going to prison.”
Advocate Sajid Tareen who is also part of Mahrang’s team said that there were two steps that they could take. “Either we can take the case directly to the supreme court, or we can choose to take the case to the high Court again to a different bench,” he said.
However Imran Baloch told Voicepk that they would be approaching the Supreme Court next.
Chronology and timeline of events
Dr. Mahrang Baloch’s case has been marked by several critical legal junctures, each prompting significant reactions from her legal team and human rights advocates.
March 22: Dr. Mahrang Baloch, along with Beebow Baloch, was arrested from a peaceful sit-in in Quetta. They were subsequently detained at Hudda Jail under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) law. A concerning pattern emerged immediately following their arrest: for several hours, there was no information about their whereabouts, and they were denied access to legal counsel or family members. This denial of access is a frequently observed issue in the arrests of Baloch human rights defenders.
April 15: A pivotal moment occurred, when the Balochistan High Court declined to hear an appeal against Dr. Mahrang Baloch’s detention. Instead, the court referred her case directly to the provincial government. This decision was interpreted by her legal team as effectively “closing all doors” for a judicial appeal at that point, compelling them to engage directly with the executive authority responsible for her detention. Consequently, she remained under administrative detention, a period renewable multiple times under Pakistani law.
May 22: The Balochistan High Court upheld the continued detention of Dr. Mahrang Baloch and several other BYC members under the MPO. This ruling, issued by a two-member bench, dismissed constitutional petitions filed against their arrest after reserving judgment for over ten days. This decision was met with immediate and sharp criticism from various rights groups, legal experts, and civil society activists.
The sequence of judicial actions—first, the Balochistan High Court refusing to hear an appeal and directing the case to the executive, and then, a month later, upholding the continued detention under MPO and dismissing all petitions—is highly significant.
Lawyers and activists did not merely express disappointment; they explicitly characterized these actions as a “refusal of justice” and a “complete abdication of responsibility.” They further asserted that the court “became complicit in their violation”.
The Baloch Yakjehti Committee’s direct accusation that the court acted “under pressure from intelligence agencies and the military” and that judges “mortgaged the judiciary’s principles” elevates the critique beyond a simple legal disagreement to a fundamental challenge to judicial independence.
This pattern of judicial decisions, coupled with the severe criticism from legal professionals and human rights organizations, strongly indicates a deeply compromised judiciary that is either unwilling or unable to act as an independent check on executive power in politically sensitive cases.
This erodes public trust in the rule of law and undermines the judiciary’s foundational role as a protector of fundamental rights. It implies that the legal system itself, in these instances, has become an instrument of state policy rather than a neutral arbiter, which has profound implications for civil liberties, due process, and the democratic integrity of the nation. This perceived failure of domestic legal recourse directly informs the legal team’s consideration of international advocacy.