Blog

Seven policemen have been suspended after a teenage boy died in the custody of Sindh Police’s Special Investigation Unit (SIU).

While police claimed that Muhammad Irfan died of a heart attack, his family alleged that he was tortured to death.

Police surgeon Dr Summaiya Syed told a private media outlet that the body of a boy identified as Irfan was brought to Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC) for a post-mortem examination.

She said there were “multiple injuries on the body”, but the cause of death would be confirmed after the chemical examination report.

According to police documents submitted to the medico-legal section of JPMC, the deceased was a 30-year-old, while his relatives told reporters that he was only 16.

Karachi police chief Javed Alam Odho said Irfan and three others were detained on suspicion of being involved in robberies. He claimed that Irfan suffered a heart attack soon after being taken into custody and died.

He said the post-mortem was conducted in the presence of a magistrate, and the police were waiting for the final report before starting legal action. Odho said if the report confirmed any torture or wrongdoing, the officers involved would face both departmental and criminal proceedings. He added that he had appointed the Korangi SSP as an inquiry officer to determine the circumstances leading to the death.

Meanwhile, Irfan’s relatives told the media that he had recently arrived in Karachi from his hometown Ahmedpur East. They said Irfan and three friends went for breakfast at Ayesha Manzil on Wednesday morning but did not return. Their phones also remained switched off.

On Thursday evening, Irfan’s uncle received a call from the SIU office informing him about his nephew’s death. The family claimed Irfan died from police torture and urged the Sindh chief minister and police chief to take action and ensure justice.

Senior journalist Shahid Jatoi posted on social media that Irfan’s mother suffered a heart attack after hearing about her son’s death.

Meanwhile, SIU SSP Amjad Ahmed Shaikh said the police received information that four suspects were recording videos of banks and ATMs. He said an SIU team detained them from Ayesha Manzil on Wednesday and brought them to the SIU/CIA Centre in Saddar at around 5:30 pm.

Fifteen minutes later, Irfan’s health deteriorated, and he was taken to JPMC where doctors declared him dead on arrival.

An explosion near a police vehicle in Hangu on Friday killed Superintendent of Police (Operations) Asad Zubair and two other policemen, officials confirmed to the press.

According to reports, the deadly blast took place as SP Zubair and his team were heading to the site of a first explosion at a police checkpoint in the Ghulmina area.

While no casualties or damage were reported in the first blast, terrorists targeted the vehicle of SP Zubair near Daraban upon his arrival at the site to inspect the scene.

DSP Khanzeb Mohmand said the second blast killed SP Asad Zubair and two policemen while two others sustained injuries.

Rescue teams shifted the bodies and the injured to the District Headquarters Hospital in Hangu, and additional police was deployed for a search operation.

Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi condemned the attack and paid tribute to the martyred officers, saying, “The sacrifice of SP Asad Zubair and the policemen will not go in vain.”

He also expressed deep sympathy and condolences to the families of the martyrs.

A day after the federal government approved a ban on Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) under the anti-terrorism act (ATA), the Interior Ministry on Friday formally banned the religiopolitical party, declaring the group a proscribed organisation.

A notification – that comes almost a week after Punjab government proposed the ban amid deadly protests by the TLP – said that the federal government has reasonable grounds to believe that the party is connected to terrorism.

“[…] In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11B(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997), the federal government hereby orders TLP to be a proscribed organisation for the purpose of the Act and list the aforesaid organisation in the first schedule to the said Act,” the notification read.

A day earlier, a press release issued by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) had said that a ban on TLP had “unaimously” been approved by the federal cabinet.

It added that the Interior Ministry presented the summary to the federal cabinet on the Punjab government’s request and a briefing was provided on the “violent and terrorist activities of TLP in the country”.

“The meeting was informed that this organisation, established since 2016, has incited violence across the country. Due to the organisation, incidents of violence have occurred in different parts of the country,” it added.

It pointed out that the TLP was banned in 2021 as well, which was lifted after six months on the condition that unrest and violent activities would not be carried out by the party in the future, adding that a reason for the current ban on the organisation was also the reneging on the guarantees given in 2021.

“In the past, security personnel and innocent bystanders have been killed in violent protests and rallies by the TLP. The federal cabinet, after a briefing given to the meeting and the recommendation of the Punjab government, unanimously concluded that the TLP is involved in terrorism and violent acts,” the press release concluded.

Punjab government had last week forwarded a formal recommendation to the Centre, requesting a formal ban on TLP in response to a fresh call of protest by the religious party after violent clashes across the province.

The move was aimed at restoring public order and reinforcing the writ of the state and rule of law after casualties were reported in camps of both law enforcement and the TLP. The unrest began when police dismantled a TLP protest camp in Muridke, prompting confrontations that led to the death of a police station house officer (SHO) and three others, including a passerby.

According to Punjab Information Minister Azma Bukhari, at least 1,648 police personnel were also injured, some of whom were struck by gunfire while dozens of public and private vehicles were also torched, and commercial properties damaged.

It may be noted that this is not the first time the hardliner party has been banned.

The party was first outlawed in April 2021 amid violent rallies over the publication of blasphemous caricatures in France.

The then Imran Khan-led Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government had in November 2021 announced lifting the ban following an agreement between the government and said party to halt its march to Islamabad.

The Supreme Court has determined that a woman’s right to seek ‘khula’, the dissolution of marriage, is not contingent upon her husband’s agreement. The court has also acknowledged psychological abuse as a legitimate basis for divorce, asserting that emotional distress and mental cruelty carry the same legal significance as physical abuse.

The opinion, written by Justice Ayesha A Malik, responded to a petition submitted by Dr. Seema Hanif Khan. She contested Peshawar High Court’s dismissal of her request for dissolution of marriage, which had been denied because her husband’s consent was deemed necessary and reconciliation attempts had not been fulfilled.

The court found that khula represents an autonomous right granted to women, which should not be dependent on the husband’s consent or judicial discretion. It noted that when a marriage has irreparably deteriorated, a woman is entitled to request its dissolution, irrespective of her husband’s position.

Dr. Seema initially went to the Family Court, seeking separation based on cruelty, non-payment of maintenance, and her husband’s second marriage occurring without her agreement. She claimed her husband inflicted mental and emotional suffering on her, making it impossible to sustain the marriage.

Although the Family Court granted the khula, it did so without her direct request, prompting her to contest the ruling. The court also held that her dowry, which included gold and money, had been relinquished as part of the dissolution. On appeal, the Peshawar High Court upheld the decision, affirming that khula could only be granted with the husband’s agreement and after attempts at reconciliation.

The Supreme Court reversed both lower court decisions, restoring the decree of dissolution and supporting Dr. Seema’s right to keep her dowry. Justice Malik’s ruling noted that cruelty “need not always be evident in physical violence,” emphasizing that psychological abuse that undermines a woman’s self-esteem or subjects her to humiliation can also validate divorce.

The court instructed family courts to recognize various forms of psychological harm such as intimidation, neglect, and emotional abuse when evaluating marital disputes. It stressed that a woman’s emotional health must be factored in when considering whether a marriage has become unworkable.

The judgment criticized the patriarchal rationale used by the lower courts, which labeled the petitioner as “disobedient” for seeking a career and educational opportunities abroad. It clarified that such choices align with a woman’s personal autonomy and cannot be cited as reasons for denying maintenance or dissolution rights.

The court pointed out that the Family Court had incorrectly interpreted the law by assuming that maintenance could be withheld for disobedience. It ruled that maintenance is a legal responsibility of the husband according to the applicable family laws and cannot be revoked based on assumptions.

Referring to Articles 14, 25, and 35 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court reiterated women’s rights to dignity, equal treatment under the law, and family protection. It highlighted that the right to pursue khula embodies these constitutional protections, enabling women to exit harmful or inequitable marriages.

The bench also addressed the issue of the husband’s second marriage, which was conducted without the wife’s approval, thereby violating the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (MFLO). The court determined that this behavior is against the law and provides a valid ground for dissolution under Section 2(ii-a) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.

Regarding the dower, the Supreme Court rejected the rationale of the lower court that suggested recovering gold ornaments necessitated filing a police report. It ruled that dower items including gold and money must be returned to the wife unless a legitimate reason for withholding them exists.

The court restored the Family Court’s decree of dissolution, recognized the petitioner’s right to seek divorce on the basis of psychological cruelty and second marriage, and upheld her entitlement to her dower and property.