The larger bench, headed by Acting Chief Justice SM Atiq Shah, also comprises Justice Arshad Ali, Justice Sahibzada Asadullah, Justice Naeem Anwar, and Justice Waqar Ahmed. It is scheduled to take up the petition at 9am on Monday.
According to the writ petition filed by Abdul Halim, on April 27, law enforcers, including personnel from the Hayatabad police station, raided his residence and detained five people, including himself. While Halim was later released, the remaining people have been missing since then.
Police have claimed that the raid was linked to the disappearance of a woman named Safia, who had reportedly travelled from Oman to Lahore and then to Peshawar. Her whereabouts remain unknown.
Earlier, a three-member SHC bench had issued notices to the attorney general for Pakistan, the home secretary, and the provincial police chief. The court ordered the missing persons be presented at the next hearing.
Police officials stated in the court that an Omani passport, two mobile phones, and a laptop were recovered during the raid at Halim’s house. They further submitted that the missing persons had been granted bail by the area magistrate under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and are therefore not in police custody.
Despite the police claim, the court reiterated its order for the missing persons to be produced before the bench on Monday and has once again sought replies from the AGP, IGP, and the home secretary.
Separately, a writ petition has been filed in the PHC challenging recent amendments to the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, which increase the minimum experience required to contest Bar Council elections from 10 to 15 years.
The petition, filed by Advocate Saifullah Mohib Kakakhel, prays the court declare the amendment null and void on the grounds that they are discriminatory and undemocratic. The petitioner argues that the change will disenfranchise a large number of lawyers, particularly young professionals, women, persons with disabilities, lawyers from the merged districts, and minority communities, who will now be excluded from participating in Bar Council elections.
Advocate Kakakhel contends that the amendment was introduced without broad consultation and undermines the democratic ethos of the legal profession. “Such exclusion fosters inequality in a profession that should stand for justice and representation,” he stated.