ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday refused to entertain a constitutional petition filed by civil society representatives seeking a broader independent commission, headed by a retired superior court judge, to conduct a detailed inquiry on 444 alleged extra-judicial killings by former superintendent of police (SSP) Rao Anwar along with his police party.
SC approached for inquiry into Rao Anwar's ‘444 killings’
The top court’s registrar office returned the petition raising objections that the petitioners did not approach the right forum in this matter and did not give justification for not doing so.
The petitioners, social activist Muhammad Jibran Nasir, Muhammad Khan, Jamshed Raza, Mahmood Aquila Ismail and Nazim Fida Hussain Haji, through their lawyer Faisal Siddiqi, had filed the petition under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution with Anwar, Inspector General of Sindh Police (IGP) and the federal government as respondents.
The petition had pleaded the SC that the proposed commission should inquire as to whether 444 extrajudicial killings conducted by Anwar, along with his police officers, were genuine encounters in accordance with law.
Secondly, it said if all or any of these extrajudicial killings were illegal then what administrative and penal action should be taken against the officer(s).
The petition had also asked to identify the civil servants and politicians, including but not limited to the Sindh police officers, who prevented and subverted the accountability of any of these illegal extrajudicial killings conducted by the respondent No 1, along with police officers.
Former SSP Rao Anwar files appeal against SC order
It said whether the victims of such extrajudicial killings were entitled to any compensation from the government and whether such compensation should be recovered from the concerned police officers found involved.
The petition also sought to suggest various measures to prevent future extrajudicial killings from taking place.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ