• SHC rules judges cannot interfere in an ongoing investigation
• Asks police to use all resources to conclude probe ‘impartially, fairly and expeditiously’

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by the family of slain businessman Mir Raza Ali for the constitution of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to probe the case, ruling that it was the prerogative of the provincial government to form a JIT.

A two-judge constitutional bench of the SHC comprising Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Justice Muhammad Jaffer Raza noted that it could not interfere in the ongoing investigation without departing from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

However, it directed the police to use all available resources, including engaging with other law enforcement and investigative agencies, to conclude the investigation in an impartial, fair and expeditious manner.

The judges said that the petitioners were at liberty to avail themselves of all remedies available under the law to ensure that the investigation was carried out in a fair, impartial, efficient and transparent manner.

The family had petitioned the SHC last week against the formation of a judicial commission. They also sought directives for the provincial government to form a JIT, as well as departmental and criminal action against members of the previous investigation team.

On Aug 31, the bench had heard the parties concerned at length and reserved its order for pronouncement during the course of the day. However, the written order, authored by Justice Raza, was issued on Wednesday.

The order said that the petitioners were dissatisfied with the ongoing investigation and had sought a directive for the respondents to constitute a JIT to investigate the crime.

It said the court had framed the questions of whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the SHC could be invoked to direct the constitution of a JIT and whether the court could substitute, supervise or affect the statutory criminal investigation under Article 199 of the Constitution.

It also stated that the Advocate General and Prosecutor General of Sindh had collectively argued that, in its writ jurisdiction, the SHC had no power either to direct the formation of a JIT or to supervise or interfere in an ongoing investigation.

The bench further noted that when the judges specifically inquired from the counsel appearing for the petitioners to cite any law under which the high court was vested with the jurisdiction to order the constitution of a JIT, he had cited only Section 19(1)(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997.

However, it observed that the court disagreed with this contention because the present FIR did not, at the time of writing the judgement, include any provision under the ATA. Even if the said FIR had included offences under the ATA, it would still be the prerogative of the government to constitute a JIT pursuant to the above-mentioned provision, it added.

The bench observed that the “institutional sabotage” referred to by the counsel for the petitioners could not be established without addressing contested factual assertions, which, needless to mention, was impermissible in the writ jurisdiction of the high court.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgement in the case of Sughran Bibi, the SHC noted that the court ought not to interfere with an ongoing investigation and/or assume the role of the investigator, and that such a propensity had been categorically deprecated in the said judgement.

“We cannot interfere in the ongoing investigation without departing from the principles laid down in the case of Sughran Bibi (supra). The said exercise would involve this court rendering its opinion on the alleged discrepancies and incompetence of the prosecution and delving deeply into the factual aspects of the case, an exercise which is impermissible and likely to influence the ongoing investigation. For the same reason, we have deliberately abstained from recording contested factual assertions presented by the respective counsel,” it added.

The bench said the investigating officer had categorically stated that he had been making his best possible efforts to investigate the matter.

It added that the police must use all available resources, including engaging with other law enforcement and investigative agencies, if mandated by law, to conclude the investigation impartially, fairly and expeditiously.

Regarding the formation of a judicial commission, it noted that the counsel for the petitioners had not seriously contested its formation and had expressed confidence in it, as the ancillary relief sought by him in the instant petition was largely covered under the commission’s terms of reference. “Before parting with the judgement, we would like to express our deepest condolences to the petitioners. We are extremely mindful of the agonising loss experienced by them; however, we cannot allow our empathetic impulses to supersede the established mandate of the law,” the order concluded.

Published in Dawn, September 3rd, 2026