SC refers Mahrang Baloch detention case to regular bench

Five-member CB headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the appeal against her detention

The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench referred Baloch Yakjehti Committee leader Dr Mahrang Baloch's detention case to a regular bench, while disposing of a suo motu case regarding the dilapidated condition of schools in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.

A five-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the appeal against Baloch’s detention on Thursday. During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the matter did not fall under the jurisdiction of the constitutional bench.

“This case should be heard by a regular bench, as we have not sought interpretation of the Constitution,” the counsel said. The constitutional bench subsequently referred the matter to the Regular Practice and Procedure Committee for scheduling before a regular bench.

Dr Mahrang Baloch, along with other members of the BYC, was arrested on March 22 on charges of “attacking” Quetta Civil Hospital and “inciting people to violence,” following a police crackdown on protestors demonstrating against alleged enforced disappearances.

Mahrang was detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order — a law that authorises the arrest and detention of individuals suspected of posing a threat to public order — for an initial period of 30 days.

In the same sitting, the bench heard the suo motu case concerning the poor condition of government schools in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P). Additional secretary for education informed the court that the provincial government was implementing the Supreme Court’s directives.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail observed that despite the 2005 earthquake, several schools had yet to be completed. “Building new schools is necessary, but repairing the old ones is equally important,” he remarked.

Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi noted that work on 107 units in Mansehra and 11 in Kohistan was still incomplete. The additional secretary requested more time for completion. “It's been 20 years since the 2005 earthquake — we are now in 2025. How much more time is needed?” Justice Rizvi questioned. Justice Khan remarked, “It is not our job to construct schools, but to review the implementation of the court’s orders.”

The court disposed of the case, directing the concerned authorities to submit a detailed implementation report to the Supreme Court.