PIMS case back in court: IHC to hear FIR plea on 3 NovemberPakistan

According to the petition, the same matter was earlier taken to a sessions court, which dismissed the application on the ground that the case was already pending before the Islamabad High Court. That dismissal, the petition argues, left the FIR question unresolved, which is why the petitioner has now approached the high court directly for directions.

The background to the case is the fire that broke out on 26 August in the nursery of the Mother and Child Healthcare Centre at PIMS. Fourteen newborn babies died in the incident, which drew nationwide attention and raised serious questions about fire safety arrangements in public hospitals. In the days that followed, the prime minister ordered the suspension of eight officials identified by an inquiry committee and directed that criminal proceedings be initiated, while a Senate human rights committee also pressed for an FIR.

Several petitions concerning the tragedy are already pending before the Islamabad High Court. In earlier hearings, the court sought a detailed response from the federal government, including the report submitted to the prime minister and the action taken on it, and asked why no action had been taken on an earlier National Assembly health committee report on PIMS. The court has also been hearing pleas seeking a judicial inquiry and stronger enforcement of fire safety rules in the capital.

The sessions court chapter closed on 27 October, when Additional District and Sessions Judge Raja Asif announced a reserved decision dismissing the application for an FIR. During those proceedings, police had asked for the plea to be dismissed, and the judge had asked whether related proceedings were pending before another court. The petitioner told the court that five writ petitions concerning action over the incident had been filed, a point that underlines how many parallel legal tracks the tragedy has generated.

For the families of the children who died, the central question remains accountability. Compensation was announced after the incident, but the petitioners argue that payments alone do not answer who was responsible. An official fire report later identified shortcomings in fire safety arrangements, according to published reports.

Tuesday’s hearing will not by itself decide guilt or innocence. The court will first consider whether to admit the petition and what directions, if any, to issue on the requests for an inquiry, an audit and the registration of a case. Whatever the court decides, the hearing marks another step in a legal process that has kept the PIMS tragedy in public view more than two months after the fire, and that will test whether the accountability promised in its aftermath is actually delivered.