LHC seeks report on implementation of MPO detention safeguards ruling
LHC seeks report on implementation of MPO detention safeguards ruling
The Lahore High Court has sought a report on the implementation of the MPO judgment, the larger bench’s decision on Sections 3 and 16 of the MPO Ordinance, the law that allows authorities to detain citizens to ensure public order.
Justice Farooq Haider, hearing a constitutional petition by Advocate Abdullah Malik against the MPO Ordinance, asked what progress had been made on implementing the larger bench’s judgment.
The MPO judgment of June 2025
A larger LHC bench on June 19, 2025 referred three reform proposals to the Punjab Law Department: greater transparency in detention orders, a right of appeal, and deterrent penalties for misuse of detention powers. The referral followed disclosure that 4,770 detention orders were issued in 2023 alone.
Justice Haider observed that copies of the larger bench’s decision had been sent to the chief secretary and the Ministry of Law, and asked about the steps taken to implement the ruling.
Advocate Azhar Siddique, appearing in the matter on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that no action had been taken to implement the June 19, 2025 directions.
What the petition argues
The petition contended that the MPO law does not provide clear and effective safeguards against deprivation of liberty through preventive detention, which it said cannot substitute for the criminal justice system. It maintained that a citizen’s liberty could not be curtailed without evidence and reasonable grounds.
It also challenged Section 16, arguing that its broad restrictions on freedom of expression are inconsistent with constitutional guarantees and that vague standards such as “fear or alarm” could permit restrictions on fundamental rights without sufficiently clear criteria.
Why the MPO matters
The Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance is a colonial-era law that survives in modified form in Pakistan. Its preventive detention provisions allow district authorities to order the detention of a person for a limited period where they are satisfied it is necessary to prevent a threat to public order. The orders are executive in nature, which means they are passed by the administration rather than by a court after a trial.
That executive character has made the law controversial: MPO orders have been issued routinely around periods of political unrest and public agitation, and the 4,770 orders placed before the larger bench for a single year show the scale at which the power is used in Punjab.
The tension is straightforward: the state says it needs a tool to act quickly against an imminent threat to public order, while critics argue that without clear standards, a right of appeal and penalties for misuse, it can be used to lock up people who have committed no crime. The June 2025 ruling tried to balance these concerns with its three reform proposals; the question now is whether any of them has happened.
What happens next
The court has asked for a report on implementation. If no action has been taken on the June 2025 directions, it will have to decide on enforcement, which could include ordering compliance reports from the chief secretary and the law department within a fixed time. The broader challenge to Sections 3 and 16 will also be heard on its merits.
What is the MPO Ordinance?
The Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance lets the administration detain a citizen for a limited period to prevent a threat to public order; the order is executive rather than passed by a court.
What did the LHC larger bench order on June 19, 2025?
It referred three reform proposals to the Punjab Law Department: transparent detention orders, a right of appeal, and deterrent penalties for misuse.
What does the petition say about Section 16?
It argues the section’s broad restrictions on freedom of expression are inconsistent with constitutional guarantees, and that vague standards such as “fear or alarm” could restrict fundamental rights without clear criteria.
