The Sindh High Court on Wednesday turned down Mir Raza Ali’s family petition for the constitution of a joint investigation team (JIT) to probe Ali’s murder, observing that petitioners are at liberty to avail all remedies available to them under the law to ensure that the investigation is carried out in a manner which is fair, impartial, efficient and transparent.
Disposing of the petition, a division bench comprising Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Justice Mohammad Jaffer Raza observed it is well settled that the high court ought not to interfere with the ongoing investigation and/or assume the role of the investigator.
The court specifically inquired from the petitioners’ counsel to cite any law in which this court is mandated with the jurisdiction to order the constitution of a JIT. It observed that the petitioners’ counsel in response only cited Section 19(1)3 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgments in Sultan Ali and fake bank accounts case.
The SHC stated that it disagreed with the contentions advanced by the counsel for the reason that the present FIR does not, till the time of writing this judgment, include any provision under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.
The court observed that even if the said FIR included offences under the anti-terrorism law, it would still be the prerogative of the government to constitute a JIT pursuant to the above-noted provision.
The bench noted in its judgment that the reliance of the petitioner in Sultan Ali’s judgment is misplaced as the facts in the noted judgment are distinct insofar it was alleged that the prosecution against the petitioner in the noted case was a result of political victimization.
The court also observed that even in those circumstances the court refused to grant the relief sought in reference to formation of a JIT. It said the “institutional sabotage” referred to by the counsel cannot be established without adverting to contested factual assertions, which needless to mention, is impermissible in the writ jurisdiction of the court.
The court observed that the investigation officer of the case affected appearance in the court and has very categorically stated that he has been making his best possible efforts to investigate the matter and shall use all resources at his disposal, including engaging with other law enforcement, investigative agencies if the law mandates, to conclude the investigation impartially, fairly and expeditiously.
It said the petitioners are at liberty to avail all remedies available to them under the law to ensure that the investigation is carried out in a manner which is fair, impartial, efficient and transparent.
The court observed that the petitioners may further avail their remedy in accordance with law, in case they are dissatisfied with the investigation upon its conclusion. Regarding the constitution of a judicial commission in the Mir Raza Ali murder case, the SHC observed that all the counsel placed on record the gazette notification on August 24, 2026 pertaining to the formation of a Single-Member Commission of Inquiry under the Sindh Tribunals of Inquiry Ordinance, 1969 (“Ordinance”) which made question about formation of commission inconsequential.
The court observed that the judicial commission has also commenced proceedings and the petitioners’ counsel did not seriously contest the formation of the commission and expressed confidence in the same as the ancillary relief sought by him in the instant petition is largely covered under the terms of reference of the noted commission.
The court observed that bench is not inclined to hinder or make any observation concerning proceedings pending before the commission. It also expressed its deepest condolences with the petitioners and observed that the bench is extremely mindful of the agonizing loss experienced by them.
The court however observed that the judges on the bench cannot allow their empathetic impulses to supersede the established mandate of the law and disposed of the petition. The high court had earlier framed questions on a petition asking the government and the petitioner’s counsel to argue whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the court could be invoked to direct constitution of a JIT. The court also asked the family’s counsel if the court could substitute, supervise or affect the statutory criminal investigation and submission of the police report in writ jurisdiction.
It directed the counsel to submit a submission on the proposition as to whether in the absence of a gazette notification under the Sindh Tribunals of Inquiry Ordinance, 1969, a case of interference was made out.
The petitioners’ counsel Jibran Nasir said that family members had demanded constitution of a JIT for probing the murder case. He said a police investigation team had sabotaged the initial investigations and now they would assist the judicial commission constituted to examine the deficiencies in the case.
He said the judicial commission had to conduct an inquiry under the terms of reference, not an investigation. He said no action had been taken against police officials who destroyed the case evidence in the case.
He added that the Supreme Court had allowed the JIT formation in the case of administrative sabotage. He said the judicial commission would actually get support from the same team that even after a month could not trace the suspects.
