Constitutional court bars PHC from 3-MPO detention casesPakistan

The high court had earlier issued orders restraining the authorities from making arrests under Section 3 of the ordinance. It had also ordered the release of 28 workers of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf who had been detained in various districts of the province.

The provincial government challenged those orders before the Federal Constitutional Court, arguing that the high court could not interfere in areas where the army is deployed under Article 245 of the Constitution.

The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general argued that the high court could not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 199 in such matters. The court’s written order states that proceedings under Article 199 filed in the Peshawar High Court on or after 12 October 2026 shall remain suspended under Article 245(4) of the Constitution.

The court suspended the challenged orders passed by different benches of the Peshawar High Court and issued notices to the parties in the matter. After issuing the directives, the court adjourned further proceedings indefinitely.

Justice Aamer Farooq observed during the hearing that the high court received several cases under Article 199 on a daily basis. He asked whether the high court would not hear cases that came before it every day.

Former additional advocate general Shah Faisal Ilyas appeared on behalf of the parties and asked the court to hear the parties before issuing an interim injunction. He argued that the provincial government’s three objections could not be sustained.

Responding to the arguments, Chief Justice Khan said the parties could file their objections after examining the court’s order. The court also sought a report from the advocate general within seven days regarding the deployment of the army and the areas where it is no longer required.

The case arises from the situation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where the President proclaimed emergency and governor’s rule in the province on 11 October 2026 under Articles 232 and 234 of the Constitution. Preventive detentions under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance followed.

The dispute between the two courts turns on whether the high court can hear challenges to those detentions while the army is deployed under Article 245. The Federal Constitutional Court’s order, for now, says it cannot, and that cases filed on or after 12 October will remain suspended.

The court’s decision is an interim one, and the parties will have a chance to file objections. But it is already a significant ruling, because it limits the high court’s role in detention cases in the province at a time when dozens of workers have been detained.